Skip to main content

Full text of "Calendar : meeting of Finance Committee, Board of Supervisors, City and County of San Francisco"

See other formats


5 CLOSED 
STACKS 



m 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 

REFERENCE 
BOOK 

Nul la be lukenfrum the Libruty 



c 12 *» 

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 05718 2959 



CALENDAR 

MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ - ITEMS 5-13 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City HalL-p.- 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. tr'T. 

MAY 1 2 . 

CONSENT CALENDAR rr^nciSttQ 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

a. File 23-92-4 . [Claims Against the Government] Resolution waiving the Statute of 
Limitations with respect to payment of two warrants of the City and County of San 
Francisco, in an amount totalling $408.86 legal obligations of the City and County of 
San Francisco. (Controller) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

b. File 146-92-28 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, AIDS Office, to accept and expend a grant of $457,580 from a 
collaboration of the Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and 
Services Administration for the AIDS Early Intervention Service Network 
Demonstration Project; waiving indirect costs. (Department of Public Health) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

c. File 23-92-5 . [Claims Against the Government] Resolution waiving the Statute of 
Limitations with respect to payment of five warrants of the City and County of San 
Francisco, in an amount totalling $15,942.02 legal obligations of the City and County 
of San Francisco. (Controller) 

d. File 25-92-12 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that janitorial services can be practically performed at the 
Real Estate Department at 25 Van Ness Avenue by private contractor for lower cost 
than similar work services performed by City and County employees. (Real Estate 
Department) 

e. File 25-92-13 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that security services can be practically performed at the 
Real Estate Department at 25 Van Ness Avenue by private contractor for lower cost 
than similar work services performed by City and County employees. (Real Estate 
Department) 



f . File 152-°2-l . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Sheriff's 
Department of the City and County of San Francisco to apply for $166,622 in funds 
from the State of California Board of Corrections for the Standards and Training of 
Local Corrections Programs; stipulating adherence to standards for recruitment and 
training established by the Board of Corrections, waiving any indirect costs. (Sheriff) 

g. File 101-90-10.8 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, 1989 Earthquake Bond Fund, in an amount totalling 
$314,900 (Eugene Lew & Associates, Contractor, $254,900, for Architectural and 
Engineering services for a seismic upgrade project for Research/IZG facility and 
$60,000 for California Academy of Science Project Management), for the California 
Academy of Science, Earthquake Safety Program Phase I Project. (Department of 
Public Works) 

h. File 146-91-83.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 

Department of Public Health/AIDS Office, in the amount of $30,000, to establish an 
Interactive Video Kiosk for AIDS/HTV prevention services to Black Gay/Bisexual 
Community (National Task Force on AIDS Prevention, Contractor). (Department of 
Public Health) 

i. File 101-91-30.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 

Department of Public Works, in the amount of $250,000, for Islais Creek Pump 
Station and Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant Improvements geotechnical 
consulting and finalization of the contract budget (AGS Consulting Engineer, Inc., 
Contractor). (Department of Public Works) 

j. File 79-91-2.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's 
Office of Economic Planning and Development, in the amount of $120,000, for the 
Homeless Program Pool, from the 1992 Community Development Block Grant 
Program. (Mayor's Office of Economic Planning & Development) 

k. File 155-92-1 . [Reward Authorization] Ordinance authorizing payment of reward to 
does one through five. (City Attorney) 

ACTION: Items b, c, f , g, i and j removed from Consent Calendar. Remainder of 
Consent Calendar recommended. 

Item lb, File 146-92-28. Amended on lines 4 and 16, by replacing 
"$457,058" with "$452,559". Recommended as amended. 
New title: "Authorizing the Department of Public Health, AIDS Office, 
to accept and expend a grant of $452,559 from a collaboration of the 
Centers for Disease Control and the Health Resources and Services 
Administration for the AIDS Early Intervention Service Network 
Demonstration Project; waiving indirect costs." 

Item lc, File 23-92-5. Tabled. 

Item If, File 152-92-1. Amended on line 3, following "apply", by adding 
"retroactively". Further amended on line 13, by replacing "directed", 
with "authorized, retroactively". Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Sheriff's Department of the City and County of San 
Francisco to apply, retroactively, for $166,622 in funds from the State of 
California Board of Corrections for the Standards and Training of Local 
Corrections Programs; stipulating adherence to standards for recruitment 
and training established by the Board of Corrections, waiving any indirect 
costs." 



3 1223 05718 2959 



Item lg, File 101-90-10.8. Release of $313,900 recommended. Filed. 
Item li, File 101-91-30.1. Release of $250,000 recommended. Filed. 
Item lj, File 79-91-2.2. Release of $120,000 recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 100-92-3 . Hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated revenue 
shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to May 20, 1992, meeting. 

3. File 97-92-23 . [Official Bonds] Ordinance amending Administrative Code by 
amending Sections 16.138 and 16.139 thereof, relating to terms and premiums for 
bonds of City officers. (Clerk of the Board) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

4. File 127-92-2 . [Stadium Operator Admission Tax] Ordinance amending Part HI, San 
Francisco Municipal Code by amending Section 807 thereof, providing an exemption 
from the payment of the stadium operator admission tax by extending for on. year 
through December 31, 1992 the exemption from the payment of admission taxes on 
tickets sold at $12.99 or less. (Supervisor Ward) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 6, after "less", by adding "effective retroactive 
to January 1, 1992." Further amended on page 2, line 14, by adding 
"Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective retroactive to January 1, 
1992". Recommended as amended. New title: "Amending Part m, San 
Francisco Municipal Code by amending Section 807 thereof, providing an 
exemption from the payment of the stadium operator admission tax by 
extending for one year through December 31, 1992 the exemption from 
the payment of admission taxes on tickets sold at $12.99 or less; 
effective retroactive to January 1, 1992." 

5. File 254-92-1 . [Juvenile Detention Institutions Maximum Daily Charges] Resolution 
establishing maximum daily charges for support of minors placed in City and County 
Juvenile Detention Institutions and authorizing the Chief Probation Officer of the 
Juvenile Probation Department to charge less than the maximum rates when juvenile 
court determines that a lesser charge is appropriate based on parents* or guardians' 
ability to pay. (Juvenile Probation Department) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



7 45243 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
206 SFPL 11/22/00 34 



6. File 101-91-55.1. [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Controller, in the amount of $97,258, for benefit payoff - miscellaneous (to back fill 
critical and mandated positions vacated because of early retirement). (Controller) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Release of $96,945 recommended. Filed. (Controller to return the $315 
remaining balance of the original $3,000,000 supplemental appropriation 
to the General Fund General Reserve.) 

7. File 28-92-5 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the 
Department of Pvblic Works to take necessary measures to protect the health, 
safety and welfare of citizens and employees of the City and County of San 
Francisco by performing the necessary work to abate fire, health and life safety 
hazards at the Youth Guidance Center - $1,685,029. (Juvenile Probation 
Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

8. File 28-92-6 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Fire 
Department to take necessary measures to protect the health and welfare of 
firefighters of Station 28 by performing the necessary work to restore the integrity 
of Fire Station 28 at 1418 Stockton Street against water leakage into its walls and 
foundation - cost not to exceed $60,000. (Fire Department) 

ACTION: Amended on line 23, by replacing "$60,000" with "$96,800". 
Recommended as amended. 

9. File 114-92-2 . [BBI Fee Schedule] Ordinance amending Building Code by amending 
Sections 330.1, 330.2, 330.3, 331, 332, 332.1, 332.2, 332.3, 332.4, 332.5, 333.1, 333.2 
and 333.3, to increase Bureau of Building Inspection fees. (Department of Public 
Works) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

10. File 161-92-1 . [Redevelopment Agency Bonds] Resolution approving the issuance by 
the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco of Multifamily 
Housing Refunding Mortgage Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to 
exceed $75,000,000 for the purposes of its Residential Construction Financing 
Program for various multifamily housing developments. (Redevelopment Agency) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

11. File 100-91-7. Hearing to consider the status of the City's economic vitality and 
business climate. (Supervisors Gonzalez, Migden, Shelley) 

(Cont'd from 4/29/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to May 20, 1992, meeting. 



12. File 128-92-1 . [Hazardous Materials] Ordinance amending Health Code by repealing 
Article 21 and adding new Article 21 to conform hazardous materials regulations to 
Federal and State laws regulating the handling of hazardous materials, including 
underground storage tanks, by business establishments, impose additional stricter 
local requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 
25299.2 and 25500, and incorporate by reference Article 11.9 of Chapter 6.5, 
Chapter 6.7, Chapter C.75, and Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of California Health and 
Safety Code; Section 1910.1200 of Title 29, Appendix A of Part 355 of Title 40, 
Section 370.2 of Title 40 and Section 72.3 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations; and Sectior 12000 of Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 4/28/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to May 20, 1992, meeting. 

SPECIAL ORDER - 3:30 P.M. 

13. File 212-92-1 . Hearing to consider financial expenditure for the removal and 
relocation of the Pioneer Monument for the new main library. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

(Cont'd from 4/22/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/2calendarmeetingo1992sanf 



7 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Public Library, (Documents (De\ 
JVFZAQ Qerry%g 



/ 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



May 4, 1992 



TO: 
FROM: 



Finance Committee 



Budget Analyst ^Co^' 



///, 



SUBJECT: May 6, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



MAY y 

PU3LJC 



Item la - File 23-92-4 

Note: This item was was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
April 29, 1992 

Department: Controller's Office 

Item: Resolution waiving the statute of limitations with respect to 

payment of two warrants of the City and County of San 
Francisco in the sum of $408.86, a legal obligation of the City 
and County of San Francisco. 

Description: According to Section 10.181 of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code, a warrant issued by the City and 
County of San Francisco becomes void one year from the date 
issued. The payee of the warrant may present such warrants 
to the Controller for payment up to three years from the date 
that it was considered invalid, or four years from the original 
issue date. After that point, the Controller may no longer pay 
such warrants because the statute of limitations has expired, 
unless approval is obtained from the Board of Supervisors. 

The proposed resolution would waive the statute of 
limitations and would authorize the Controller's Office to 
replace the following warrants: 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Name 



Comments: 



Mr. James Brennan 
Ms. Kitty White 
Total 



Issued Warrant No. Amount 

04/24/79 810173 $297.66 

06/01/87 5502290493 111.20 

$408.86 



1. Warrant #810173 was issued almost 13 years ago to Mr. 
James Brennan by the San Francisco Public Library. 
According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office and 
Mr. Kenneth E. Dowlin, City Librarian, Mr. Brennan 
misplaced the warrant until recently and never cashed it, 
and has requested, at his own initiative, that the warrant be 
reissued. 

2. Warrant #5502290493 was issued almost 5 years ago to Ms. 
Kitty White. According to Mr. Henry Leigh of the 
Controller's Office, Ms. White took the initiative of writing a 
letter to him, indicating she had misplaced the warrant until 
recently and never cashed it, and requested that the warrant 
be reissued. 

3. Ms. Estrella Lomboy of the Controller's Office has verified 
that the Controller's Office has cancelled the warrants in 
both of the above-named instances. Mr. Madden has verified 
that the Controller's records indicate that neither of these 
warrants have been cashed. 

4. According to Mr. Madden, the City and County of San 
Francisco has sufficient funds to pay the $297.66 to Mr. 
James Brennan, and the $111.20 to Ms. Kitty White. Mr. 
Madden reports that, when a warrant is automatically 
cancelled after three years have passed, the monies revert 
back into the particular accounts from which they were 
drawn (e.g., the San Francisco Public Library). 

5. According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, a 
legal obligation is not necessarily a mandated obligation. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item lb - File 146-92-28 

Note: This item was continued from the April 29, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting. 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Grant Period: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
AIDS Office 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
AIDS Office, to accept and expend a grant of $457,580 from a 
collaboration of the Centers for Disease Control and the 
Health Resources and Services Administration for the AIDS 
Early Intervention Service Network Demonstration Project; 
waiving indirect costs. 

$457,580 

Centers for Disease Control 

Federal Health Resources and Services Administration 

June 1, 1992 to May 30, 1993 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the DPH to 
apply for the proposed grant (Resolution 177-92) in the 
amount of $500,000. The proposed grant would support the 
development of a pilot project in which early intervention 
linkages between sites providing primary medical care and 
HrV counseling and testing services would be established or 
enhanced. 



Grant Budget: 



Personnel 

Physician Specialist 
Epidemiologist II 
Health Program Coordinator 
Disease Control Investigator 
Health Educator 
Management Assistant 
MIS Specialist 
MIS Technician II 
Senior Clerk Typist 

Nurse Practitioner 



Subtotal Personnel 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits at 26 percent 



FTE 


Total 


0.75 


$51,689 


0.25 


10,587 


1.00 


41,521 


1.00 


34,107 


0.50 


19,954 


1.00 


18,390 


0.17 


9,254 


0.25 


5,601 


0.63 


20,323 


1.00 


48.478 


6.55 


$259,904 


26 per 


cent 67.575 



Total Personnel 



6.55 



$327,479 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Travel 

Local Travel $500 

Out-of-jurisdiction Travel (mandated trips 

to the funding agency) 4 i 250 

Total Travel $4,750 

Equipment 

Twelve PCs and Modems ($3,300 each) $39,602 

Two Laser printers ($1,900 each) 3,800 

Seven FAX machines ($600 each) 4,200 

Systems Upgrade associated with 
centralized client intake 5,000 

Total Equipment 52,602 

Materials and Supplies 

Office Supplies 1,790 

Furniture (includes desks, chairs, filing 

cabinets, partitions) 5,328 

Educational materials 1.000 

Total Supplies 8,118 

Clinical Expenses 
Lab tests to determine 

immune system strength 27,500 

Clinical Trials Searches 3.500 

Total Clinical Expenses 31,000 

Operating Expenses 

Rent 6,730 

Telephone 15,380 

Promotions/Advertising 5,000 
Client participation incentives (150 at $10) 1,500 

Total Other 28.610 

TOTAL $452,559 

Indirect costs are not allowed by the funder. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution would waive indirect costs. 



Required Match: None 



1. According to the proposed resolution, DPH is requesting 
authorization to accept and expend $457,580. However, the 
actual grant amount would be $452,559, a difference of $5,021. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
authorize the DPH to accept and expend $452,559, not 
$457,580. 

2. The DPH has received EIPSC approval for the proposed 
electronic equipment purchases. According to the DPH, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

seven FAX machines would be required for the proposed 
project because activities would take place at seven DPH 
satellite locations, including City clinics. 

3. Client participation incentives are small payments to 
individuals participating in the proposed pilot study to 
encourage those individuals to continue their participation. 

4. According to the DPH, if grant funding is reduced or 
terminated, personnel would be reduced or terminated 
accordingly. 

5. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" as prepared 
by DPH. 

6. The DPH has prepared a Disability Access Checklist 
which is in the file. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to authorize DPH to accept 
and expend a grant of $452,559, instead of $457,580, and 
approve as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



i-lLLciULUH^' 



MAY 01 '92 li:32PM SFDPH AIDS OFFICE 415-431-7547 

item Ky. Health Commission - Summnrv of Grant Reque st 

Centers for Disease Control and 



Rev. 4/10/90 



Grantor Healrh RpqoMrrpg and Scrvircq Admin 

Contact Person Carl Campbell 

Address 255 East Paces Ferry Road 

Atlanta, GA 30305 



Division 

Section 

Contact Person 
Telephone 



AIDS Div/CO 



AIDS Office 



Tim Plland 



55-9132 



Amount Requested S 
Term: From 6/1/9? 



452,559 



To 5/30/93 



Application Deadline. 
Notification Expected 



3/2/92 



4/15/92 



Health Commission 3/17/,9.2_ 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Bo»rd 



T. Item Description: Request to ^sfcidSM) (accept and expend) a (new) (ccoiiraatkr^^eBmadci^angraenmtonaoG^ 
tew. Atecc^K ~<*h) gj^j - m ^ amount f S from the period of 6/1/92 ; to 5/30/92 

to provide. Early Intervention Service Network Demo Project services. 

IT. SlimTTIfirV: ( Cauflim^ n»l tiMrrttf^: teste t treat* m^; ta^Ka •s4|)nrn4cn) 

To develop a pilot project i n which early Intervention linkages between sites currently 
providin g primary medical care and HIU counseling and testing services will be estab- 
lished or enhanced. Please see Attachment for a more detailed description of project. 



IIL OutcnmeVO btpctive.i: 

Please see Attachment: we estimate that between 26,000 and 28,000 individuals in 
San Francisco will benefit from these services. 



TV. Effect* of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 
Failure to accept and expend these funds would severely impair our ability to 
address the AIDS ei>idemic in San Francisco. 



V. Financial Information; 

Col, *i CgL B CBL C Co).,, P Reo. Match Approved M 

Two Yuri Ago Past Ycar/Orig. Propoted ' Cbinje 

Grant Amount _^_^^_ 452.^559 



Personnel 
Equipment 
'Contract Svc. 
Mat. Si Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 



VT. Data Proces^n_g 

vtt. Easaand 

F/T CSC m _ 

P/T CSC 

Contractual 



327, 479 
47.602 



8.118 

6,7 30 

• 62.630 

0* 

*These are Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (C/ 

Disaster Relief funds: no indirects allowec 

39.602 !_ 



5.80 



TBD 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 
None. 



Will grant funded employees br refined after this grant terminates? If so. How? 

No, 



"VTTT, Conrrnrttml Sprv(re<: Open Bid 



Sole Source 

6 



( if kIc u**cc. »e*ci R*^»«rf &i E*Hnpuai Por-n ) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



Item lc - File 23-92-5 



Department: 
Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Controller's Office 

Resolution waiving the statute of limitations with respect to 
the payment of five warrants of the City and County of San 
Francisco in the sum of $15,942.02. 

According to Section 10.181 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code, a warrant issued by the City and 
County of San Francisco becomes void one year from the date 
issued. The payee of the warrant may present such warrants 
to the Controller for payment up to three years from the date 
that it was considered invalid, or four years from the original 
issue date. After that point, the Controller may no longer 
issue any warrants because the statute of limitations has 
expired unless approval is obtained from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

The proposed resolution would waive this statute of 
limitations and would authorize the Controller's Office to 
replace the following five warrants: 



Name 



De Zordo & Assocs. 



Issued Warrant No. Amount 



6-22-88 530-0664408 



Information Systems Consultants 10-14-87 530-0606764 

Mt. Zion Hospital 9-21-87 550-2302774 

Selby, Manton L. 4-14-88 530-0648207 

Wang Laboratories, Inc. 1-09-89 530-0705354 

Total 



$ 2,223.30 
1,200.00 

10,499.00 

1,150.00 

869.72 

$15,942.02 



1. As reflected above, the requested warrants are between 
three and four and a half years old. Ms. Evelyn Alava of the 
Controller's Office of Special Projects states that all of the 
above payees were approached by Nelson-Brown Equities, 
Inc., a private legal firm, to assist the payees in making a 
claim against the unpaid warrants. Mr. Henry Leigh of the 
Controller's Office advises that Nelson-Brown Equities, Inc. 
would collect a fee from the above parties equal to 50 percent, 
or approximately $7,971.01, of the amount of the warrants. 

2. According to Ms. Alava, all of the payees report that they 
did not receive their warrants, and have requested that those 
warrants be reissued. 

3. Ms. Alava advises that the Controller's Office 
automatically cancelled these five warrants, which had not 
been cashed one year after the original issue date. The 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Controller's Office has verified that it has made no payment 
on these five warrants, Ms. Alava reports. 

4. In December, 1991, the Finance Committee denied a 
proposed resolution (File 23-91-4) waiving the statute of 
limitations with respect to payment of certain warrants 
because the payees had been approached by Nelson-Brown 
Equities, Inc., who would have collected 50 percent of the 
warrant amount in fees. In April, 1992, the Finance 
Committee denied another payment requested by another 
private legal firm, WJ Jas Assets (File 23-92-3). Ms. Celeste 
Bell of the City Attorney's Office reports that Nelson-Brown 
Equities has filed a lawsuit against the City and that the 
Superior Court is in the process of deciding whether the City 
is mandated to pay any expired warrant upon request. As of 
the writing of this report, the litigation is at the discovery 
stage, with the Controller's Office providing a substantial 
amount of documentation, and a trial date has been set for 
October 5, 1992. 

5. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, 
the City and County of San Francisco has sufficient funds to 
pay $15,942.02 to the above payees. Mr. Madden reports that, 
when a warrant is automatically cancelled, the funds revert 
back to the specific account from which it was originally 
drawn. 

6. Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office reports that the 
City is under no legal obligation to pay the expired warrants. 

7. Based on the Finance Committee's previous denial of 
legislation noted in Comment 4 above, which is similar to the 
proposed legislation, the Budget Analyst believes that the 
proposed resolution should not be approved. 

Recommendation: Do not approve the proposed resolution based on the 
Committee's previous denial of similar legislation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 15, 1992 



Item Id - File 25-92-12 



Department 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Real Estate Department 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that certain services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar work performed by City employees. 



Janitorial services at 25 Van Ness Avenue 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
janitorial services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



City Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 

Employee Benefits 
Operating Expenses 
DP W Overhead 
Total 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Saving s 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 



$126,052 


$148,901 


35,838 


40,579 


15,490 


15,490 


45.394 


45.394 


$222,774 


$250,364 


144.000 


144.000 



$78,774 $106,364 



1. Mr. Lloyd Gardner of the Real Estate Department 
advises that the City recently purchased the office building 
located at 25 Van Ness Avenue in October, 1991. Therefore, 
1992-93 would be the first fiscal year that janitorial services 
are certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 at 25 
Van Ness Avenue. 

2. Presently, the Real Estate Department is maintaining its 
janitorial services at 25 Van Ness Avenue with the firm 
providing these services when the building was purchased. 
The City's current contract, which expires June 30, 1992, is 
with Township Building Services. The Contracted Service 
Cost used for the purpose of this analysis is the current 
contractor's estimate of janitorial services for fiscal year 
1992-93. Out of the gross floor area of 147,876 square feet, 
the 25 Van Ness Avenue office building contains 136,089 
rentable square feet. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 15, 1992 



3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



FRDM:SF REAL ES _ ATE DEPT TO: 415 252 0461 APR 30. 1992 9= 21AM E£^ P. 04 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department Real Estate 

Contract Services Janitorial 



Time Period FY92-93 



1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? City purchased 

25 Van Ness on 10-23-91 and at that time retained Township Building Services 
who was servicing the building for former owner. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? 

- - 

3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

N/A 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

- - 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

Since 10-23-91 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

FY92-93 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

Purchasing will bid out with H.R.C. approval 



D epfa rt me^^Rejp^s s en t a t i ve 

_ Lloyd Gardner, Real Property Officer 
(Tvpe Name, Title) 

554-9862 

Telephone 

cxiquesp^ 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 15, 1992 



Item le - File 25-92-13 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Real Estate Department 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that certain services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar work performed by City employees. 



Security guard services at 25 Van Ness Avenue 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
security guard services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result 
in estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 


Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


Salaries 

Employee Benefits 
DPW Overhead 
Total 


$161,161 
43,123 
43.107 

$247,391 


$190,406 
49,192 
43.107 

$282,705 


Contracted Service Cost 


100.000 


100.000 


Estimated Savings 


$147,391 


$182,705 



1. Mr. Lloyd Gardner of the Real Estate Department 
advises that the City recently purchased the office building 
located at 25 Van Ness Avenue in October, 1991. Therefore, 
1992-93 would be the first fiscal year in which security 
guard services are certified as required by Charter Section 
8.300-1 at 25 Van Ness Avenue. 

2. Presently, the Real Estate Department is maintaining its 
security guard services at 25 Van Ness Avenue with the 
firm providing these services when the building was 
purchased. The City's current contract for security guard 
services, which expires June 30, 1992, is with Pinkerton's, 
Inc. The Contracted Service Cost used for the purpose of 
this analysis is the current contractor's estimate of security 
guard services for fiscal year 1992-93. Out of the gross floor 
area of 147,876 square feet, the 25 Van Ness Avenue office 
building contains 136,089 rentable square feet. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
April 15, 1992 



3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



FROM:SF REAL ESTATE DEPT TO: 415 252 0461 APR 30. 1992 8:21AM 066^ P . 03 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department Real Estate 

Contract Services Security 

Time Period FY92-93 



1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? City purchased 

25 Van Ness on 10-23-91 and at that time City retained Pinkerton Security 
who was providing security for the former owner. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? 

- - 



3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid- off. 

N/A 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

- - 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

Since 10-23-91 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

FY92-93 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

Purchasing will bid out contract with H.R.C. approval 




Department Representatxv 

Lloyd Gardner, Real Property Officer 
(Type Name, Title) 

554-9862 

Telephone 

cxlquesp j 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item If - File 152-92-1 



Department 
Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 



Sheriff 

Resolution authorizing the Sheriffs Department to apply for 
State subvention funds and stipulating adherence to 
standards for recruitment and training established by the 
Board of Corrections. 

$166,622 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 



Source of Funds: State of California Board of Corrections under Senate Bill (SB) 
924. 

Project: Standards and Training of Local Corrections and Probation 

Officers Program 

Description: The proposed subvention would fund State-certified training 

for Corrections Officers in the Sheriffs Department. The 
program is operated by the State Board of Corrections and 
provides funds to improve and standardize the skills of 
Deputy Sheriff jail staff from entry-level staff to department 
heads. SB 924 authorized the State Board of Corrections to 
establish minimum standards for the selection and training 
of Deputy Sheriff jail staff and to certify the training courses 
to be taken by personnel participating in this program. 

The proposed subvention would fund a total of 370 personnel 
during the FY 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Total training hours 
would be 14,664 and would range from 24 hours of training 
for update training for experienced personnel to 200 hours of 
training for new personnel. Training costs are paid by this 
subvention and no matching funds are required. 

The major subject areas of training are listed below: 

Deputy Sheriff Jail Staff 

Psychological theory and diagnostic techniques 

Security and supervision of minors and adults 

Legal considerations 

Laws of evidence 

Emergency procedures (i.e. First Aid, CPR) 

Supervision of special inmates 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



No. of Persons 
Served: 

Project 
Budget 



Indirect Costs: 

Required Match: 

Comments: 



Supervisory. Administrative Personnel 

Managing personnel problems 

Supervisory skills 

Legal aspects of personnel supervision 

Budgeting, accounting and fiscal management techniques 

Stress management 

Communication skills 

Legal updates (cases, statutory, administrative law) 

Applied management models 

Information systems 

Cost effectiveness analysis 

Community relations 



Training for 370 personnel 



Staff 
370 



Hours 
14,644 



Tuition 
$18,690 



Per Salary 

Diem Replacement Total 



Travel 

$3,786 $12,681 $131,465 $166,622 



None. The State Department of Corrections requires that all 
funds be used for direct training services. 

None 

1. According to Lt. Jan Dempsey of the Sheriffs Department, 
the Sheriffs Department applied for the proposed grant on 
April 15, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to authorize the Sheriffs Department to apply for 
the proposed grant retroactively. 

2. Lt. Dempsey reports that the costs of compliance with the 
proposed State mandated training would be fully reimbursed 
by the State Department of Corrections and no additional 
costs, other than the City's indirect costs, would be incurred 
by the City. As reflected in the above budget, the State would 
reimburse the City for travel, per diem, tuition, and salary 
replacement for the cost of replacing staff while in training. 

3. The proposed grant funds of $166,622 is approximately 
$10,148 or 5.7 percent less than the final FY 1991-92 grant 
award amount of $176,770. 

4. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" as completed 
by the Sheriffs Department. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Recommendation; Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Sheriffs 
Department to apply for the proposed grant retroactively. 
Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



APR-29-92 WLD 1 6 : Z- 

fiPR-29-'92 lu£D 11:53 ID:SFSD TRAINING UNIT 



Attacr.nen 



TEL NO: 



tt404 P82 



It*W No. 



JLuinmaix_ftL£ia&t-_P lussl 



Cr»ttor California Board of Corrections 

Contact Person Nathaniel Reed 

Addrese 500 Bercut Drive 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Amount Requested $ S 166. 67.2.00 „ 

Term:. From 07/01/92 Ti 

Me»Ub Commission , , L 



S.F. Sheriff's Department 
Training , 



Division 

Section 

Contact Person Sr. Deputy O'Callaqhan 

Telephone (415) 553-9GOO 



samm 



Application Deadline 04/15/92 
Notification E*ptcud \ . ■ 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Fall Board 



i, lirm DeserJ»lLftHi Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (»Uoc&tion) (augmentation to a) 
tcw^s^v***! grant tn the amount of S 166,622 from the; period of 07/01/92 to 06/30/93 

laprovvfe Training ' IcyvtCM. 

^f , pii«wm«rT» t ^ i I iyv «* j. ■ '» ft i™ W »tmy» >«>«*, wi n* ■* f ini M «i> 

Funding provlded__thrpugh the California Board of Corrections to Corrections agencies to provide 
state-certified training. This will be the thirteenth year of .participation In the* statewide 
training subvention. 



UL OntrOmn/OoUcttvn; 

To ensure compliance wlt.h_ Minimus Jail Standards and the Penal Code. To provide standardized 
entry -level training and yearly updates for journey level, management level and administrative 
level staff. 



TV. Effect* of Rcdoctlnn Or TerrnmaHfln of T^«e y\lhd*t 

Inability to comply with state mandated training. 



V. Financial Yhforwattan; 

Cot, S 
1*o Years Aid 

• Grant Amouot 212.632 
PtriOtoDet N/A 

tqnlpiatbt n/a 

•Contract Sve. n/a 

M»t. & Supp. . .N/A, __,. . . 

FaelHtief/Sptce N/A 

Otfcer n/a 

Indirect Coils n/a 

vt. T>»tt luuistia 

o -.N/A 



vn - i ^triiftnnfl 

P/T CSC 

P/T C5C _N/A 

Contractual N/A 



2iZ£ 



Co>. B 

Put Yctt/Oni- 

189,000* 


Col. C 
Proposed 

166,622 
N/A 


Cot. D 


. N/A 




. N/A 


N/A 




N/A 


N/A 
N/A 
N/A 
. N/A 
N/A 

N/A 




N/A 




,..N/A 




N/A 




N/A 




N/A 




N/A 


N/A 
N/A 
N/A 




N/A 




N/A 





R'q, .M'llli Approved by 



Soarct(s) of non-grant fontHut for salaries of CSC employees working parMlme oo tbU grant: 



N/A 



Will grant fuod.d employees be retained after this t'ant terminates? If so. How? 
HZA. _ ... 



*yilT. roMrnftn.l yvry]^,. open Bid 



Sole Source 



( r mL — . «, uuit^ii h. : 



* Subsequently reduced to $176,770. 



18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item Is - File 101-90-10.8 

Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Bureau of Architecture (BOA) 

Request for release of reserved funds for architectural and 
engineering services for a seismic upgrade project for the 
California Academy of Sciences. 

$314,900 (See Comment #1) 



Source of Funds: 1989 Earthquake Safety Bond Funds, Phase 1 



Description 



Comments: 



The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-90-10) which 
appropriated $18,927,166 and reserved a total of $4,388,266 for 
architectural and engineering services from the 1989 
Earthquake Safety Bond Funds. The California Academy of 
Sciences (CAS) share of these reserved funds is $927,113. 
Therefore, if the Board of Supervisors releases the requested 
release of reserved funds in the amount of $314,900, a balance 
of $612,213 would remain on reserve for the CAS. 

The requested release of reserved funds would be used for 
architectural and engineering services for a seismic 
upgrading project at a research facility at the CAS. 
Specifically, the reserved funds would be used as follows: 

Architectural and Engineering Services 

Eugene Lew & Associates $254,900 

Project Management Services 

CAS Project Manager for approximately 

18 months, including fringe benefits 54,000 

Materials and Supplies 

Includes Printing, Supplies, Messengers, 

and Postage 5.000 

Total $313,900 

1. As noted above, $313,900 in reserved funds would be 
required rather than $314,900 which was the originally 
requested amount. The DPW reports that for the seismic 
upgrading project at CAS, in addition to the City's 
Earthquake Safety Bond Funds, a total of $155,000 in privately 
budgeted funds from the CAS would also be used for the 
seismic upgrading project. The DPW indicates that the 
$1,000 in additional funds (difference from $314,900 requested 
less $313,900 projected cost) would come from CAS budgeted 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

funds rather than the Earthquake Safety Program bond 
funds. Therefore, the request for release of reserved funds 
should be reduced by $1,000, from $314,900 to $313,900. 

2. According to Mr. Tony Irons of the DPW's Bureau of 
Architecture, a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) was issued 
for the architectural and engineering services contract, and 
Eugene Lew & Associates was awarded the contract on 
March 29, 1992. Mr. Irons also reports that the contract was 
awarded on a lump sum basis for services to be provided for 
approximately an 18-month period beginning on July 1, 1992 
through December, 31, 1993. Eugene Lew & Associates is a 
local City-certified MBE firm. 

Recommendation: Reduce the requested release of reserved funds by $1,000, 
from $314,900 to $313,900. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item lh -File 146-91-83.1 

Department Department of Public Health (DPH) 

AIDS Office 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description; 



Request for release of reserved funds to establish an 
Interactive Video Kiosk for AIDS/HrV prevention services to 
the Black Gay/Bisexual community. 

$30,000 

Federal Department of Health and Human Services 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the 
Department of Public Health (DPH) to accept and expend a 
continuation grant of $6,099,135 from the Federal Department 
of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control, 
and reserved a total of $449,069 pending the selection of 
contractors, information regarding hours and rates, and the 
MBE/WBE status of the contractors. If the Board of 
Supervisors approves the request for release of reserved 
funds in the amount of $30,000, a total of $419,069 would 
remain on reserve. 

The reserved funds in the amount of $30,000 would be used 
for an interactive video project for Black Gay/Bisexual men. 
Overall, the project is designed to increase the awareness 
and attitudes of African American men at risk for HrV 
infection. Key activities will include a needs assessment, 
revision of content based on target population involvement, 
customized construction of the interactive video kiosk and 
placement of the kiosk in one African American gay bar (the 
Eagle Creek), and bar promotion and user surveys. 

The DPH reports that all of the $30,000 in reserved funds 
would go to one contractor, the National Task Force on AIDS 
Prevention (NTFAP). Specifically, the NTFAP would use the 
reserved funds for the following: 



Personnel 

Education Coordinator (.10 FTE) 

Coordinator, 

Research and Evaluation (.05 FTE) 
Benefits 

Total Personnel 

Insurance 



$ 3,310 

2,000 

1.220 

$ 6,530 

1,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



Comments: 



Equipment 

Hardware, including personal computer, 

laserdisk unit and video monitor 

Software for one computer 

Design and labor costs 

Materials 

Total Equipment 

Indirect Costs/Overhead 

Total 



$ 10,000 

2,000 

6,000 

2.000 
$20,000 

2.470 

$30,000 



1. According to Mr. Tim Piland of the DPH's AIDS Office, a 
competitive Request For Proposals (RFP) was issued for a 
prevention and education contract for the African American 
gay and bisexual community, and NTFAP was selected as 
the contractor. NTFAP is a non-profit organization. 

2. Mr. Piland reports that the contractual services would be 
performed from approximately July 1, 1992 through 
December 31, 1992. It is anticipated that approximately 1,000 
unduplicated persons will utilize the Interactive Video Kiosk. 

Recommendation; Release the reserved funds in the amount of $30,000. 



BOARD OF ST IPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item li -File 101-91-30.1 

Department Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Clean Water Program 

Item: Request for release of reserved funds for geotechnical 

engineering services and finalization of the contract budget 
for the Islais Creek Pump Station and Southeast Water 
Pollution Control plant improvements design. 

Amount: $250,000 

Source of Funds: 1991 Sewer Revenue Bonds 

Description- The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-91-30) for 
$4,750,000 in funds for capital improvements for the Islais 
Creek Pump Station and Southeast Plant Design. Of that 
amount, $250,000 was reserved for geotechnical engineering 
services pending the selection of a contractor, finalized cost 
details and the MBE/WBE status of the contractor. 

The DPW proposes to build: 1) a pump station to move the 
sewage from storage to treatment (Islais Pump Station); and 
2) improved treatment facilities at the City's Southeast plant. 
The DPW reports that the benefits from adopting the proposed 
project would enable the DPW to comply with National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDE) requirements. 

Comments: 1. The DPW reports that a Request for Proposal (RFP) was 

issued for the geotechnical services contract and the DPW 
selected AGS Consulting Engineers, Inc., which is a City- 
certified local MBE firm. The average hourly rates, 
including overhead, for AGS Consulting Engineers, Inc. 
range from approximately $84 an hour for a Project Director 
to approximately $39 for a Geotechnical Engineer. 

2. Mr. Ramsis Attia of the DPW reports that the reserved 
funds would be used as follows: 



Geotechnical Engineering Services 
AGS Consulting Engineers, Inc. 

Additional Engineering Services 
AGS Consulting Engineers, Inc. 
Subtotal 



$166,700 



50.000 
$216,700 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Contingency 

Approximately 15 percent of the geotechnical 
and engineering services $ 33.300 

Total $250,000 

3. According to Mr. Attia, AGS Consulting Engineers, Inc. 
has already begun work providing geotechnical and 
engineering services on approximately April 1, 1992. 
However, the reserved funds have not previously been 
requested to be released from reserve. Mr. Attia explains 
that the work was started because the City is currently under 
a Cease and Desist Order from the California Regional Water 
Quality Control Board since the City is not in compliance 
with Federal and State regulations. Mr. Attia reports that 
under the Cease and Desist order, the City must complete 
construction of the projects by January, 1994, and therefore, 
in order to complete the project on time, the geotechncial 
services must be completed by mid-May, 1992. 

4. However, given that the work was started prior to obtaining 
approval from the Finance Committee to release the reserved 
funds, thereby resulting in the release of reserved funds on a 
retroactive basis, approval of the proposed request is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed request for release of reserved funds 
on a retroactive basis is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

Ik 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item li - File 79-91-2.2 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description- 



Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development 

Release of reserved funds for the Homeless Assistance 
Program Pool, from the 1992 Community Development Block 
Grant (CDBG) Program 

$120,000 

Community Development Block Grant Funds 

On December 9, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the 
City's 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program 
(File 79-91-21) in an amount of $20,093,535. At the same time, 
the Board of Supervisors placed $500,000 for the CDBG 
Homeless Assistance Program Pool on reserve, pending the 
Mayor's Office selecting a site for a proposed drop-in center 
for homeless individuals and providing budget details on this 
project. 

The Mayor's Office is now requesting that $120,000, of the 
$500,000 placed on reserve for the above-noted drop-in center, 
instead be released to fund the Community Housing 
Partnership, a non-profit agency, in connection with its 
administrative oversight of the rehabilitation of the Senator 
Hotel, located at 519 Ellis Street and the San Christina Hotel 
located at 1000 Market Street. These two hotels are being 
rehabilitated in order to provide permanent housing with 
supportive services for homeless adults. The Senator Hotel 
will provide 87 housing units and the San Christina will 
provide 58 housing units. The Mayor's Office reports that the 
rehabilitation of the Senator is underway and the 
rehabilitation of the San Christina is anticipated to 
commence by mid-May of 1992. According to the Mayor's 
Office, both projects should be completed by the end of 1992. 
The estimated cost to rehabilitate the two hotels is $3,439,525. 
The source of the $3.4 million is San Francisco 
Redevelopment Funds ($82,687), State Housing and 
Rehabilitation Program funds ($1,701,229) and foundation 
and private funds ($1,655,609). 

The Community Housing Partnership budget for the 
expenditure of the $120,000 for the period May 1, 1992 to 
December 31, 1992, is detailed below. 



Personnel 
Salaries (4.78 FTE) 
Payroll taxes and benefits 
Subtotal 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



$88,708 
19.098 



$107,806 



Memo to Finance 


Committee 






May 6, 1992 


Other Expenses 








Bookkeeping 


$2,600 






Audit 


2,200 






Office Rent and Utilities 


3,000 






Office Supplies 


800 






Telephone 


1,200 






Printing and Copying 


1,600 






Postage 


672 






Miscellaneous 


122 






Subtotal 




$ 12.194 




Total 




$120,000 


Comments: 


1. Mr. Joe LaTorre of the Mi 


ayor's Office rei 


Dorts that 



on the original budgets for the rehabilitation of the two hotels, 
the above itemized costs of $120,000 for personnel and other 
expenses, to be incurred by the Community Housing 
Partnership, were to be paid for by development fees. 
Development fees are fees paid to the housing developer to 
cover general administrative overhead costs. However, 
according to Mr. LaTorre, unanticipated project delays, 
along with a decision made last Fall to provide shelter to . 
homeless individuals prior to and during the rehabilitation of 
the hotels, has resulted in cost overruns that have eliminated 
the budgeted development fees. Mr. LaTorre advises that, in 
order for the rehabilitation of the two hotels to be completed, 
the above requested Community Housing Partnership's costs 
must be funded. 

2. The Community Housing Partnership's administrative 
oversight duties, in connection with the rehabilitation of the 
two hotels, include (1.) management of the rehabilitation 
process, (2) negotiation of Section 8 contracts with the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 
which will set rents to be charged, (3) property management 
involving the day-to-day operations of the hotels and (4) 
coordination of social services for homeless tenants. 

3. As noted above, the $500,000 that was placed in reserve for 
the CDBG Homeless Assistance Program Pool was originally 
designated for project(s) associated with the development of a 
drop-in center for homeless individuals. This center would 
provide short-term refuge and assist homeless individuals 
with alcohol and/or drug problems. Mr. LaTorre advises that 
there is currently a total of $644,449 ($144,449 in 1991 carry- 
over funds plus $500,000 in reserve funds) budgeted in the 
Homeless Assistance Program Pool. Approval of the 
proposed release of reserved funds in the amount of $120,000, 
for the administrative oversight of the two hotels, would still 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

result in a balance of $524,449 in the Homeless Assistance 
Program Pool to be used for the original purpose of a drop-in 
center. According to Mr. LaTorre, if the $524,449 is not 
sufficient to totally fund the drop-in center, any shortfall 
would be paid for by re-allocating surplus CDBG funds. Mr. 
LaTorre advises that an Invitation for Bids is in the process of 
being issued for the renovation of the drop-in center. 

4. Since the Mayor's Office is proposing to use $120,000 of the 
$500,000 placed on reserve to pay for administrative oversight 
costs associated with the rehabilitation of the Senator Hotel 
and the San Christina Hotel, instead of the development of 
the drop-in center as originally proposed, the Budget Analyst 
believes approval of the proposed release of reserved funds is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the release of the proposed $120,000 is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item Ik - File 155-92-1 

Department: Police Department 

Item: Ordinance authorizing payment of a reward to John or Jane 

Does one through five 

Reward Amount: One reward not to exceed $10,000 

Source of Funds: Judgements and Claims Account (General Fund) 

Description: The proposed ordinance would authorize the Chief of Police to 

reward one individual who supplied information that led to 
the arrest and conviction of the persons responsible for the 
murder of Mr. Scott Quackenbush. According to the proposed 
ordinance, the Chief of Police would determine the amount of 
the award, not to exceed $10,000, based on the significance of 
the individual's contribution. 

San Francisco has an established system of rewarding 
individuals for their assistance in arresting and convicting 
persons responsible for crimes. This case differs slightly 
from the established routine, according to the proposed 
ordinance, in that the identity of the individual who gave 
information must be kept confidential to protect the 
individual from retaliation. According to the proposed 
ordinance, the Chief of Police would certify to the Controller 
the identity of the individual and the amount to be paid to that 
individual, and the Controller would then issue a reward to 
be delivered by the Chief of Police. 

Comments: The source of funds for the proposed reward would be the 

Judgements and Claims Account in the 1991-92 Controller's 
Operating Budget. The fiscal year 1991-92 budget allocates 
$4.2 million of General Fund revenues to the Judgements 
and Claims account. 

Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 2 - File 100-92-3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992. 

This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. 

On March 31, 1992, the Controller, the Mayor's Finance Director and the 
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst issued a Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall for Fiscal Year 1992-93. A revenue shortfall of between $139.2 
and $148.2 million for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year is projected in order to fund the level 
of services assumed in the original 1991-92 budget. This projected revenue 
shortfall results largely from a combination of (a) increased spending levels in 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 of $170.8 million, including $108.0 million in salary and fringe 
benefit increases and (b) reduced General Fund revenues. 

This latest projection compares to the prior revenue shortfall projection of 
$91.7 million in a joint report dated November 27, 1991. 

The $139.2 to $148.2 million projected revenue shortfall amount must be 
eliminated through either (a) a reduction in expenditures (b) increased revenue 
sources, or (c) a combination of both. 

According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, the California 
State Constitution requires that the City and County of San Francisco adopt a 
balanced budget each year. The City's Charter, Section 6.203 states that not later 
than June first of each year, the Mayor shall transmit to the Board of Supervisors 
the consolidated budget estimates for all departments and the proposed budget for 
the City and County for the ensuing fiscal year, including a detailed estimate of 
all revenues for each department and an estimate of the amount required to meet 
bond interest, redemption and other fixed charges of the City and County and the 
applicable revenues. At the same time, the Mayor is also required to submit to the 
Board of Supervisors a draft of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the 
ensuing fiscal year, which is prepared by the Controller. 

According to Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor is 
required to submit a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Delventhal 
acknowledges however that the Mayor's proposed budget may include anticipated 
revenues that have yet to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. For example, 
during the fiscal year 1991-92 budget, the Mayor submitted a proposed budget that 
included increases in the City's parking tax from 20 to 25 percent and increases in 
the MUNI Fast Pass, the projected revenues from which would balance the 
proposed expenditures. The Board of Supervisors had not yet adopted these 
revenue measures as of June, 1991 when the Mayor submitted his recommended 
budget to the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



In preparation for an anticipated shortfall in the 1992-93 budget, Ms. Teresa 
Serata of the Mayor's Office reports that initially the Mayor's Office requested that 
each department submit a reduced 10 percent proposed budget for fiscal year 1992- 
93. However, given the recent $139.2 to $148.2 million shortfall projected, the 
Mayor's Office has now requested that each department and commission review 
and resubmit their proposed 1992-93 budgets to the Mayor's Office, to include an 
additional 8 percent reduction. Because many of the departments under the Chief 
Administrative Officer (CAO) are so small, the Mayor's Office has requested an 
additional collective 8 percent reduction from all of the CAO's departments, 
rather than individually. In addition, specific reductions of $20 million each from 
the Municipal Railway (MUNI) and the Health Department were requested in 
lieu of an additional 8 percent reduction. According to Ms. Serata, the various 
City departments are currently working on these additional reductions, and such 
changes should be approved by each of the City commissions. 

According to Ms. Serata, in addition to expenditure reductions, 
departments are being encouraged by the Mayor's Office to include additional 
potential revenues that could be used to offset the additional 8 percent reduction. 

Ms. Adelle Foley of the Mayor's Office reports that the requested reductions 
to the MUNI and Health Department must be taken in the context of the 
department's overall General Fund budget request. The Budget Analyst's Office 
has requested that the Mayor's Office provide a detailed explanation of any 
expenditure reductions and any revenue enhancements, such as Municipal 
Railway fare increases, in writing. 

The Mayor's Office has outlined the following anticipated budget schedule. 
The Mayor's budget staff are presently working with each department's budget 
staff to develop individual department's budgets. This review will include 
additional revenue ideas and enhancements for these departments. According to 
Ms. Serata, the Mayor has already met with all of the City's major departments 
and most of the City's other General Fund supported departments. As has been 
done in past years, Ms. Serata anticipates submitting the proposed departmental 
budgets to the Controller's Office by May 15, for reconciliation of individual 
department's numbers and the overall budget. According to Ms. Serata, a draft 
final budget would then be submitted to the printer on approximately May 22 and 
initial copies of the Mayor's 1992-93 budget should be available by approximately 
May 27. As has been the practice in prior years, the Mayor's Office could provide a 
confidential copy of the Mayor's budget to the Budget Analyst's Office once copies 
were available from the printer, although complete budget information, including 
necessary detail and back-up materials would not be available until June 1, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

The Finance Committee inquired on April 8, 1992 and again on April 15, 
1992 regarding the ability of the Board of Supervisors to receive the 1992-93 budget 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline as required by the Charter, or if that is not 
possible, to receive preliminary budget data or alternative budgetary scenarios 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline. On April 22, 1992, the Mayor presented a letter 
to the members of the Finance Committee providing advance information about 
the FY 1992-93 budget, which the Mayor's Office is currently reviewing. This 
letter summarizes the budget process, meetings, explains the differences among 
the various department's budget targets, SB 855 services, etc. In addition, various 
attachments to this letter highlight specific expenditure reductions, revenue 
increases and departmental targets for the larger City departments. 

On April 22, 1992, the Finance Committee also requested additional 
information regarding which policies and priorities were being assigned to 
various City programs and services, in terms of developing the FY 1992-93 budget. 
In reviewing individual City department budgets, Ms. Foley indicated that the 
Mayor's Office is attempting to balance departmental revenue ideas with service 
reductions, with a goal of minimizing the impact on services to the public. 
However, Ms. Foley cautions that the current adminstration's position that no 
new general tax increases will be imposed, in conjunction with the required costs 
of Salary Standardization and numerous Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOUs), consent decrees and other prior agreements, significantly limit the 
flexibility of the Mayor's Office in terms of which items and programs can be 
reduced in the FY 1992-93 budget. According to Ms. Foley, the Mayor's Office 
requested that each Department prioritize their budgeted programs and services 
according to a hierarchy of the most important to the least important, when 
submitting their FY 1992-93 departmental budget requests. Ms. Foley reports that 
most departments have submitted prioritized budgets with various options, and 
that the Mayor's budget staff is reviewing these individual departmental priorities 
as part of the Mayor's budget review. 

Ms. Serata reports that the FY 1992-93 budget will identify all Proposition J - 
Children's Amendment Services according to whether these services are existing 
(baseline) or new programs and services. In addition, according to Ms. Serata, 
the Mayor's budget staff is presently compiling the number of layoffs by 
department that are anticipated to be included in the FY 1992-93 budget. 

Mr. Ed Harrington of the Controller's Office reports that the Controller's 
Office has had some discussions with the Mayor's staff and consulted with local 
leading economists on the projected major revenues (i.e., property taxes, sales 
taxes, motor vehicle in lieu and business taxes) for FY 1992-93. As of the writing of 
this report, the Controller, the Mayor's Director of Finance and the Budget 
Analyst have no changes to the projections contained in their March 31, 1992 Joint 
Report. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



However, Mr. Harrington advises that according to Section 6.306 of the 
Charter and based on discussions with the City Attorney, the Controller is not 
required to certify the revenues contained in the Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance (annual budget). However, as required by Section 6.301 of the Charter, 
the Controller is responsible for periodically preparing revenue projections and if 
the Controller's revenue projections indicate a shortfall of revenues, the 
Controller has the authority to limit expenditures by City departments to the 
extent of the revenues being projected. According to Mr. Harrington, as 
historically has occurred, he anticipates that there will be agreement between the 
Controller and the Mayor's Office regarding the revenue estimates for FY 1992-93. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 3 - File 97-92-23 

Item: Ordinance amending Article IX, Division 2, of the San 

Francisco Administrative Code by amending Sections 16.138 
and 16.139 thereof, relating to terms and premiums for 
performance bonds of City officers. 

Description: In December 1991, the Internal Audits Division of the 

Controller's Office issued an audit report on the Official 
Performance Bonds of the City covering the period January 1, 
1990, to June 30, 1991. Official performance bonds are bonds 
that provide the City a surety against the misdeeds of City 
officials up to the monetary limit of the individual bond. The 
premiums of all official bonds are paid by the City. 

The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the City 
complied with its provisions of the Administrative Code 
regarding the bonding of certain City officials, as 
enumerated in Section 16.136-1 of the Administrative Code. 
The report found compliance with applicable provisions of the 
Administrative Code with the following two exceptions. 

a. Section 16.138 of the Administrative Code currently 
limits official bonds to one year periods. However, in one 
instance, a performance bond was obtained for a four 
year period. 

b. Section 16.139 of the Administrative Code currently 
provides that the insurance premium paid for 
performance bonds not exceed 1/2 of 1% of the face 
amount of the performance bond. However, the 
Controller's auditors found that two official bonds of 
$5,000 and $10,000 had $100 annual premiums instead of 
the maximum allowable premium amounts of $25 and 
$50 respectively. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Sections 16.138 and 
16.139 of the Administrative Code, as follows: 

a. Section 16.138 would be amended to provide that the term 
of any individual official performance bond shall be for 
the full term of the office of the official covered by the 
bond, unless the City's Risk Manager determines that 
bonds for the full term of office are not commercially 
available or are not commercially available at 
economically feasible terms and rates. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

b. Section 16.139 would be amended to increase the 
maximum rate that the City can pay for official 
performance bonds from the existing 1/2 of one percent, 
annually, of the face value of the performance bond 
amounts for which the officers specified in Section 
16.136-1 are bonded to two percent annually. However, 
the amendment also provides that the two percent 
limitation could be adjusted as necessary by the City's 
Risk Manager, with the approval, by resolution, of the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Keith Grand, the City's Risk Manager reports that the 

annualized premium cost of multiple year performance 
bonds are less expensive than single year performance 
bonds. 

2. Mr. Grand further reports that small performance bonds, 
such as in amounts of $5,000 and $10,000, are not available at 
premiums below $100. Mr. Grand reports that such small 
bonds are normally available at rates of two percent of the 
face value of the performance bonds. 

3. Increasing the premium ceiling from 1/2 of one percent to 
two percent to accommodate the $100 minimum annual 
premium for official performance bonds that is commercially 
available would increase the annual premiums for such 
bonds by an estimated $1,000. However, as previously stated, 
official performance bonds are not commercially available at 
premiums less than $100 annually. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 4 - File 127-92-2 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992. 

1. The proposed item would amend Article II, Part III of the San Francisco 
Municipal Code, by amending Section 807 thereof, providing an exemption from 
the payment of the Stadium Operator Admission Tax, by extending for one year, 
through December 31, 1992, the exemption from the payment of admission taxes 
on tickets sold at $12.99 or less. 

2. Until December 31, 1991, Section 807 of Article II, Part II of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code provided for an exemption from the $0.50 Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax for tickets prices at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid 
admissions to any single event. Since January 1, 1992, the exemption from the 
$0.50 tax applies only to all tickets prices at $2.01 or less. The proposed ordinance 
would amend Section 807 to extend the exemption from the $0.50 tax for tickets 
priced at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid admissions at each event to be 
effective for one year, until December 31, 1992. 

Baseball season began April 4, 1992, and the exemption from the Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax expired on December 31, 1991. Since season tickets have 
previously been sold for the 1992 season and home games have already been 
played, if approved, the proposed ordinance would need to be amended to provide 
an exemption from the payment of the Stadium Operator Admission Tax on 
tickets sold at $12.99 or less retroactive to January 1, 1992. 

3. The Stadium Operator Admission Tax was established in 1971 to finance 
partially the expansion of Candlestick Park. The Giants report that a) the stadium 
expansion of 1970 was exclusively for the accommodation of football; b) between 
1970 and 1979, attendance in excess of pre-expansion capacity (approximately 
42,500) occurred on only 15 occasions totalling only 118,526 tickets with total 
additional ticket sales from the expansion resulting in approximately $511,600 of 
additional revenue; c) during this same time period (1970-79), the Giants 
generated approximately $2,064,046 in Stadium Operator Admission tax 
revenues. Since 1980, the Giants have exceeded pre-expansion capacity on 60 dates 
(10 of these dates were in the 1989 season which had total attendance of 2,370,126 
including 310,297 for three playoff games and two World Series games). 

4. Prior to 1977, exemptions from this Stadium Operator Admission Tax 
had a minor impact on revenues and were primarily limited to tickets prices at 
$2.01 or less. From 1977 through 1987, the ticket prices to be exempt rose several 
times. During 1988 and 1989, the exemption was on tickets of $12.99 or less for the 
first 42,500 paid admissions at each event. Tickets sold in excess of 42,500 at each 
event were subject to the $0.50 tax. As previously noted, the proposed ordinance 
would extend the exemption for tickets priced at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 
paid admissions until December 31, 1992. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

5. Actual revenues to the Candlestick Park Fund from the $.50 Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax from FY 1986-87 through FY 1991-92 have been as 
follows: 

1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 

49ers $304,561 $306,400 $349,089 $341,000 $326,000 $326,000 **** 

Giants 87,636* 11,094** 176,259*** 22,262** 6,761** 
Monsters of Rock 

Concert 32.500 

Total $304,561 $394,036 $392,683 $517,259 $348,262 $332,761 

* Reflects Admission Tax payments on playoff games which had ticket 
prices exceeding $9.99. 

** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in 
excess of 42,500 at each game. 

*** Reflects Admission Tax payments for those tickets sold for all seats in 
excess of 42,500 at each game and for playoff and World Series games which 
had ticket prices exceeding $12.99. 

**** Estimate based on ticket sales for 1991. 

6. Ticket prices for the Giants in 1992 are $12.25 lower box, $11.25 upper box, 
$10.25 lower reserved, $8.25 upper reserved, $5.25 pavilion, and $2.75 general 
admission. These prices represent an increase of 25# per ticket for each of these 
categories over the 1991 prices to provide the per ticket surtax of 25# for tickets of 
less than $27 (Giants tickets). A surtax of 75<Z was added in 1991 for tickets of $27 
or more (49ers tickets). These ticket surtaxes were implemented for the 1992 
baseball and football seasons to support San Francisco high school sports. Since 
the prices of all the Giants tickets are less than $12.99, all tickets sold by the 
Giants, excluding those tickets sold in excess of 42,500 per game, and excluding 
playoff and World Series tickets which have a price exceeding $12.99, are exempt 
from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax. Ticket prices for the 49ers will 
increase from $35 to $35.75 for all seats in 1992. This 75<Z increase over the 1991 
prices provides for the per ticket surtax of 75<Z for tickets over $27 noted above. In 
accordance with a 1985 agreement between the City and the 49ers, luxury boxes 
are exempt from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax. 

7. The projected amount of annual revenue in 1992 from the Stadium 
Operator Admission Tax, a) based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $2.01 or 
less (which would result if this proposed ordinance were not approved), and b) 
based on an exemption for all tickets sold at $12.99 or less (which would result if 
this proposed ordinance were approved), and c) based on budgeted and projected 
1992 attendance figures, would be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo 


to Fi: 


nance Committee 






May 6, 


1992 










Pro 


iected 1992 Stadium Operator Admission Tax 


Revenues 








If exemption of tax 










is on all tickets 










of$12.99orlessfor 








If exemption of tax 


the first 42,500 


Estimated 






is on all tickets 


paid admissions 


Additional Revenues 






of $2.0 lor less 


at each event 


to the City 






(If proposed 


(If proposed 


(If proposed 






legislation 


legislation 


legislation 






is not approved) 


is approved) 


is not approved) 


49ers 




$326,000 


$326,000 





Giants 




875.000 


6.761 


$868,239 



Total 



$1,201,000 



$332,761 



$868,239 



Stadium Operator Admission Tax revenues are credited to the Candlestick 
Park Fund. If the proposed legislation were not approved, this would result in the 
Candlestick Park Fund being credited with additional estimated annual revenues 
of $868,239. However, since the Candlestick Park Fund also receives a stipulated 
percentage of Hotel Tax revenues, by amending the Hotel Tax Ordinance by an 
amount of Hotel Tax revenues corresponding to the additional Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax revenues, these funds could be allocated to the General Fund. 
Therefore, approval of the proposed legislation would effectively result in an 
estimated loss of revenue to the General Fund of approximately $868,239. 

8. Although the previous exemption expired on December 31, 1991, the 
Giants report that to date, they have not been collecting any Operator Admission 
Taxes. According to the Giants, a total of approximately 941,000 tickets have been 
sold to date, including 298,000 individual tickets and 643,000 season tickets. Based 
on a total of approximately 1,750,000 tickets to be sold for the entire season, 
approximately 809,000 tickets remain to be sold. Applying the Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax only on all prospective Giants tickets used after May 11, 1992 
would result in approximately the following revenues: 

Box seats (lower and upper) $ 177,980 

Reserved (lower and upper) 145,620 

General Admission/Pavilion 80.900 

Subtotal Prospective Revenues $ 404,500 

Season Ticket Holders (Tickets not yet Used) 271.500* 

Total Prospective Revenues $ 676,000 



*It should be noted that since the Giants would have address information 
for their season ticket holders, a letter could be sent to those Giants ticket 
purchasers to collect the Stadium Operator Admission Tax, for those tickets not 
yet used. As of the writing of this report, a total of 643,000 season tickets have been 
sold, but thus far, only 100,000 season tickets have been used. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

9. As noted above, the estimated additional revenues to the City from 
Giants tickets if the proposed legislation is not approved, would be approximately 
$868,239. If prospective General Admission and Pavilion tickets, the two lowest 
priced tickets, are exempted from the Stadium Operator Admission Tax, a total of 
$787,339 in revenues would be generated ($868,239 less $80,900 in projected 
revenues from General Admission/Pavilion tickets). If both prospective and 
retroactive General Admission and Pavilion tickets are exempted from the 
Stadium Operator Admission Tax, a total of $763,499 in revenues would be 
generated ($868,239 less $80,900 in projected revenues and an estimated $23,840 in 
retroactive revenues from General Admission/Pavilion tickets). 

Recommendations 

(1) Providing for an exemption of the $0.50 Stadium Operator Admission 
Tax on all tickets prices at $12.99 or less for the first 42,500 paid admissions at 
each event, which would effectively result in an estimated loss of revenue to the 
General Fund of approximately $868,239, is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

(2) If the legislation is approved, the proposed ordinance should be 
amended to provide an exemption from the payment of the Stadium Operator 
Admission Tax on tickets sold at $12.99 or less retroactive to January 1, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 5 - File 254-92-1 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Juvenile Probation Department 

Resolution establishing new maximum daily charges for 
support of minors placed in City and County Juvenile 
Detention Institutions and authorizing the Chief Probation 
Officer of the Juvenile Probation Department to charge less 
than the maximum rates when the Juvenile Court 
determines that a lesser charge is appropriate based on the 
parents' or guardians' ability to pay. 

The Juvenile Probation Department reports that Section 202 
of the State Welfare and Institutions Code provides that the 
parental obligations to support and maintain a minor child 
continues, subject to the ability of the parent to pay, during 
any period which the minor may be declared a ward of the 
court and removed from the custody of the parent. 

The Juvenile Probation Department has historically absorbed 
the cost to support minors incarcerated in Juvenile Hall and 
Log Cabin Ranch. The Department is now proposing to 
charge the parents or guardians of these minors for these 
support costs. The proposed legislation would establish the 
following new maximum daily rates to be charged to parents 
or guardians for support of minors placed in Juvenile Hall 
and Log Cabin Ranch: 



Juvenile Hall 



Food and Preparation $14.07 

Clothing and Related Expenses 1.75 

Personal Needs of Minors .15 

Total Daily Rate $15.97 



Log Cabin Ranch 

Food and Preparation $22.21 

Clothing and Related Expenses .95 

Personal Needs of Minors .07 

Total Actual Daily Cost $23.23 

Less: Amount exceeding 
maximum allowable charges 
(pursuant to Section 903 of the 
Welfare and Institutions 
Code) (5.67) 

Total Daily Rate $17.56 



Additionally, the proposed legislation would authorize the 
Chief Probation Officer to charge less than the maximum 
rates noted above, when the Juvenile Court determines that a 
lesser charge is appropriate based on the parents' or 
guardians' ability to pay. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Comments: 1. Although the proposed support costs can be charged to the 

parents or guardians, the Juvenile Probation Department 
reports that Section 903 of the Welfare and Institutions Code 
specifically prohibits charging parents or guardians for any 
costs associated with incarceration, treatment or supervision 
of the minor child. Additionally, medical costs incurred by 
the minor child for purposes of incarceration, such as 
preadmission medical screening, are not chargeable to 
parents or guardians. The DPH advises that all other 
medical costs incurred by the minor child are more 
efficiently recovered by billing the patients or their insurance 
carriers directly. As such, these medical costs are not 
included in the proposed daily rates for the support of 
minors. 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



2. Ms. Patricia Grice of the Juvenile Probation Department 
estimates that approximately $29,750 in revenues would be 
generated in the first year from the daily rates charged to 
parents or guardians for the support of minors placed in 
Juvenile Hall and Log Cabin Ranch. 

3. Ms. Grice advises that the $15.97 maximum daily rate to be 
charged to parents and guardians for the support of minors 
at Juvenile Hall would fully cover the costs for these 
expenditures. However, Section 903 of the Welfare and 
Institutions Code stipulates that the maximum daily rate to 
be charged to parents or guardians cannot exceed $17.56. 
Therefore, the maximum daily rate charged for the support 
of minors of $17.56 at Log Cabin Ranch will not fully cover the 
actual daily costs of $23.23 for Log Cabin Ranch. 

Although the Welfare and Institutions Code limits the 
charging of support costs only for juveniles, Lieutenant Jan 
Demsey of the Sheriffs Department reports that Section 
10.39-2 of the Administrative Code authorizes the Adult 
Probation Department to collect monies from adult offenders, 
if authorized by the Court pursuant to Section 1203 of the State 
Penal Code, for the overall daily cost of incarceration in San 
Francisco County jails. The payment of such costs by adult 
offenders is based on the ability to pay. 

The proposed resolution is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 6 - File 101-91-55.1 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992. 

Department: Controller 

Item: Requesting release of $97,258 to backfill critical positions 

vacated because of early retirement 

Source of Funds: General Fund 

Description: 1. On March 9, 1992, the Board of Supervisors approved an 

ordinance (File 101-91-49) amending the Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance to allow the Controller to transfer salary and fringe 
benefit savings, appropriated for positions held by employees 
who retire early under the City's "3 + 3" Program (Proposition 
A), to a reserve account to finance the lump sum sick leave and 
vacation payments. 

2. Some of the positions vacated as a result of Proposition A, 
such as department head positions and other critical positions, 
are mandated by the Charter. Other positions, although not 
mandated are deemed necessary for the effective functioning of 
a department. If an individual retires from a position that is 
considered to be a mandated or critical position, that position 
can be backfilled, if approved by the Proposition A Committee. 
The Committee consists of the Mayor, General Manager, 
Personnel, and the Controller, or their designees, and two 
labor representatives appointed by the San Francisco Labor 
Council, who serve as advisory members. 

3. On March 11, 1992, the Finance Committee approved an 
ordinance appropriating $3,000,000 for the purpose of 
backfilling those positions, and reserved the $3,000,000 pending 
Finance Committee review of positions selected by the 
Proposition A Committee to be backfilled. The Proposition A 
Committee convened on March 19 and March 20, 1992, and as 
a result of its departmental hearings process, recommended 
that $1,867,425 for backfilling 199* General Fund positions be 
released from reserve. The Finance Committee approved the 
release of funding in the recommended amount at its meeting 
of March 25, 1992. 

* 200 were recommended for release for backfill but one of these 
positions did not take early retirement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



4. The Proposition A Committee reconvened its hearings on 
March 26, 1992, and subsequently requested that $879,322 of 
the remaining $1,132,575 from the $3,000,000 supplemental 
appropriation be released for funding the backfill of 169 
General Fund positions. The Finance Committee approved 
the release of funding in the recommended amount at its 
meeting of April 1, 1992. 

5. The Proposition A Committee reconvened its hearings on 
April 2, 1992, and subsequently requested that $155,993 of the 
remaining $253,253 from the original $3,000,000 
supplemental appropriation be released for funding the 
backfill of 61 General Fund positions (one Proposition A 
retiree was restored to his position, making the actual figure 
60). The Finance Committee approved the release of funding 
in the recommended amount at its meeting of April 8, 1992. 
Therefore a balance of $97,260 remained from the original 
appropriated $3,000,000. 

6. The Proposition A Committee reconvened its hearings on 
April 9, 1992. The Proposition A Committee, following the 
direction of the Finance Committee, did not recommend that 
funds from the remaining $97,260 of the original $3,000,000 
supplemental appropriation be released from reserve. 
Instead, the Proposition A Committee indicated to the 
Finance Committee on April 8, 1992, that the Proposition A 
Committee would begin to identify the minimum of 500 
General Fund positions to be eliminated, prior to requesting 
the release of additional reserved funds for backfilling 
vacated positions. 

7. The Proposition A Committee reconvened its hearings on 
April 16, and April 17, 1992. The Proposition A Committee 
discussed, with the individual department representatives, 
whether to retain specific positions, to provisionally retain 
specific positions or to delete specific positions. The 
Committee, at those hearings, decided to retain an additional 
107 positions, abolish 61 positions, and provisionally retain an 
additional 35 positions. The Proposition A Committee did not 
recommend that funds from the remaining $97,260 of the 
original $3,000,000 supplemental appropriation be released 
from reserve. 

8. The Proposition A Committee reconvened its hearings on 
April 23, 1992, with a representative of the Budget Analyst's 
Office in attendance. At that hearing, the Proposition A 
Committee selected the final 41 positions to be retained from 
the 541 remaining positions. The Committee voted to 
recommend to the Mayor that the remaining 500 Proposition 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

A vacated positions not selected for retention or placed on the 
provisional list be abolished. 

9. The Proposition A Committee is now requesting that 
$96,945 of the remaining $97,260 from the $3,000,000 
supplemental appropriation be released for funding the 
backfill of 28 additional General Fund positions. Attachment 
I is a report listing the 28 positions to be backfilled and the 
amounts recommended by the Proposition A Committee, 
totalling $96,945. Page 3 of Attachment I shows for each City 
department the number of Proposition A retirees (1,336), the 
number of mandatory (370), and non-mandatory (466) 
positions retained, and the number of positions abolished 
(500). 

Comments: 1. The Finance Committee has thus far released backfill 

funding in the amount of $2,902,740 from the $3,000,000 
supplemental appropriation, as follows: 



Released by the Finance Committee 

on 3/25/92 
Released by the Finance Committee 

on 4/1792 
Released by the Finance Committee 

on 4/8/92 
Total 

Therefore, as previously noted, a balance of $97,260 remains. 
In addition to the $2,902,740 already released from reserve, 
additional funds actually and potentially available to the 
Health Department, the Municipal Railway, the Recorder's 
Office and the Public Administrator's Office will be used for 
funding positions previously approved for backfilling by the 
Finance Committee. Each of these positions were included 
with $1 of funding of the original $3,000,000 appropriation. 

2. As previously noted, the Proposition A Committee is 
recommending to the Mayor a total of 500 General Fund 
positions for elimination (see Attachment I, page 3 for a list, 
by department only, of the positions to be abolished. As of the 
writing of this report, the list of each of the 500 specific 
positions to be abolished has not yet been provided to the 
Budget Analyst). The 500 positions recommended to be 
abolished represents the minimum permissible number 
under Proposition A to be eliminated from the City's FY 1991- 
92 and FY 1992-93 budgets. Upon recommendation of the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISOR 
BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Amount 


Number of 
Positions 


$1,867,425 


199 


879,322 


169 


155.993 
$2,902,740 


60 

428 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, by a two-thirds vote, may 
restore to the Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget or place in the FY 
1992-93 budget any of the positions designated for elimination. 

3. Elimination of each position through the Proposition A 
process saves approximately $50,000, including fringe 
benefits, on the average. Should, for example, 600 rather than 
500 General Fund positions be eliminated through the 
Proposition A process, an additional approximately 
$5,000,000, annually, in General Fund savings would result. 

4. The Transport Workers Union at the April 17, 1992, 
hearing testified that 40 9163 Transit Operator positions and 
11 9139 Transit Supervisor positions, then in the non- 
mandatory pool of 647 positions, were actually positions 
mandated by Proposition A. The Union stated that, in fact, 
agreement was reached with the City to protect these transit 
positions prior to placing Proposition A on the ballot. 
Attachment II are copies of letters from the Transport 
Workers Union of America to the Proposition A Committee in 
which the Union claims that these two classifications are not 
subject to the Committee's elimination process. Should these 
51 transit positions be subsequently placed on the position 
retention list, the Proposition A Committee would be forced to 
rescind some of its prior decisions regarding retaining 
positions. However, while one of these letters was signed off 
by Mr. Claude Everhart, former Deputy Mayor, the Union 
presented no evidence that the Board of Supervisors had 
agreed to any such conditions. 

5. The Proposition A Committee was dissolved as the last 
order of its business at the Thursday, April 23, 1992, hearing. 

6. As previously noted, the Proposition A Committee is now 
requesting that $96,945 be released. This results in a balance 
of $315 from the $3,000,000 previously appropriated by the 
Board of Supervisors for the backfilling of positions. If the 
Finance Committee approves the requested release, given 
that the Proposition A Committee has been dissolved, the 
balance of $315 should be returned to the General Fund. 

Recommendations: 1. Release funds in the amount of $96,945 for the purpose of 
backfilling the 28 additional positions identified by the 
Proposition A Committee at its meeting of April 23, 1992. 

2. Request the Controller to return the $315 remaining 
balance of the original $3,000,000 supplemental appropriation 
to the General Fund General Reserve. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



City and County of San Francisco Attachment! Office of Controller 

' Page 1 of J 




May 4, 1992 

Finance Committee 
Board of Supervisors 
Room 235, City Hall 
San Francisco, CA 9410 



Re: File No. 101-91-55.1 

Requesting release of funds 
to back fill early retirement 
positions 



Dear Supervisors: 

The Proposition A Early Retirement Review Committee established by charter section 
8.517-1 concluded its review of positions vacated as a result of the Proposition A Early 
Retirement Program on Thursday, April 23. 

At the meeting of April 23, the Committee recommended the attached list of 2L8 general 
fund funded positions for back filling. Once again, the Committee closely reviewed any 
positions with an annual salary in excess of $60,000 as required by the Early Retirement 
legislation. Positions authorized with annual salary cost in excess of the $60,000 
threshold are indicated on the attached list with an asterisk. The Committee 
recommended back filling of a position from the date at which the department and Civil 
Service reasonably considered a replacement might be hired to the end of the fiscal year 
to minimize the amount of General Funds required. 

Your approval to release $96,945, of the remaining $97,260, from the $3,000,000 
supplemental appropriation made for the purpose of back filling these mandated and 
critically needed positions is requested. 




Edward Harringtc 
Controller 

cc: Prop A Committee Members 
Budget Analyst 

oom 109, Crty Hall San Francisco ©4102 

45 



^^^^^^^mw^^^^^^^^^&^^^^^^^^M 



DEPARTMENT CLASS 

2 ASSESSOR 

4222 SENIOR PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDITOR 
4265 SENIOR REAL PROPERTY APPRAISER 



MAN- NONMAN- 
DATED DATED 



4 DISTRICT ATTORNEY 
1458 LEGAL SECRETARY I 
8181 ASSISTANT CHEF ATTORNEY I 



12 JUVENILE PROBATION 

1426 SENJOR CLERK TYPIST 

2716 CUSTODIAL ASSSTANT SUPERVISOR 

2654 COOK 

8440 PROBATION OFRCER 



13 ADULT PROBATION 

8440 PROBATION OFFICER 

8442 SENIOR PR08ATON OFFICER 



SUBTOTAL: 



SUB TOTAL- 



SUB TOTAL- 



SUB TOTAL; 



41 PUBUCLBRARY 

1222 SR PAYROLL AND PERSONNEL CLERK 

1496 SUPERVISING CLERK 11 

2708 CUSTODIAN 

3616 LIBRARY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT 1 

3618 LIBRARY TECHIN1CAL ASSISTANT n 



65 LAGUNAHONDA 

1656 HEAD ACCOUNTANT 
1653 CHIEF ACCOUNTANT 



SUBTOTAL- 



SUBTOTAL- 



86 SAN FRANOSCO GENERAL HOSPITAL 
1S32 ASSSTANT STOREKEEPER 
2233 SUPERVISING PHYSICIAN SPECIALIST 
2322 HEAD NURSE 
2450 PHARMACIST 
2453 SUPERVISING PHARMACIST 
2496 DOCTOR. RADIOLOGY 
2925 CHiEr, MEEXCAL SOCIAL SERVICES 
7120 ELDG 4 GROUNDS MAINT SUPERINTENDENT 



SUBTOTAL 
TOTAL 



AMOUNT 



$5,350 
$5,350 



$4,481 
$7,619 



$3,463 
$2,916 
$4,133 
$4,724 



$4,724 
$5,202 



$4,275 
$2,797 
$3,181 
$3,999 
$4,376 



$2,050 
$2,491 



S1.106 
$3,504 
$5,156 
$6,035 
$2216 
$2774 
$2,195 
$2828 



11 
18* 



Attachmen 
Page 2 of 



$10,701 



$12100 



$15236 



$9,926 



$18,627 



S4.541 



$25,814 



General Fund appropriation for general fund backfills: 



^Actual total is 28. 

$3,000,000 



Fencing reteessd torn resent based on recommendations 
of t>e Proposoon A Review CommiQee: 

Funcing refcssed from reserve on 3/2S/92: 
Fundrig released from reserve on 4/1/92: 
Fundng reieasad from reserve on 4J8/SZ 
Total requeued d $3 mJEon: 

Beianco aj d 4S92: 

Funding requested for release on 56/92 

Bafcnce: 



($1,867,425) 
($879,322) 
($155.993) 

($2902740) 

$97260 

($96,945) 

$315 



46 



CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 
PROPOSITION A EARLY RETlRB^&fr COKWITTEE 



NUMBER OF REPRESS BY DEPARTMENT 



Page 



r^AftYMENT 


RETIREES 


RETAINED* 


ABOLISHED 






Mand 


Norwnand 




1 board of supervisors 


2 




1 


1 


2 ASSESSOR 


10 




5 


5 


3 CfTY ATTORNEY 


e 


4 


2 


3 


4 USTRKTATTCflrSY 


10 


4 


2 


4 


5 PUBUC De=BC-=R 


i 






1 


e shehff 


1 




1 





8 TREASURER-TAX CCLL 


15 


2 


6 


7 


B CONTROLLER 


45 


1 


17 


27 


12 JLVENLE PROSATON 


14 


1 


6 


7 


13 ADULT PROBATION 


S 




5 


4 


25 MAYOR 


3 


2 


1 





26 COMMBSSON ON ASNG 


4 


4 







27 AIRPORT 


70 


70 







29 CfTYPLANhCNG 


5 


1 


1 


3 


30 CtVTLSERVlCE 


6 


1 


2 


3 


31 RRE 


3 


1 




2 


32 HETCHHETCKY 


21 


21 







33 HEALTH SERVICE SYSTEM 


3 




2 


1 


34 HUMAN RIGHTS 


2 




1 


1 


35 MUNJCFALRALWAY 


234 


85 


42 


107 


36 PARNNQiTRAFfJC 


19 


5 


4 


9 


38 POLICE 


22 




S 


14 


39 PORT 


11 


11 







40 PUBUCUTSJTESCC*^ 


41 


13 


11 


17 


41 LBRARY 


35 




17 


18 


42 RECREATION 4 PARK 


81 


18 


23 


41 


44 RETWEMENT SYSTEM 


4 


2 


1 


1 


45 SOCIAL SERVICES 


114 




66 


48 


46 WARMEMC«AL 


5 


5 







47 WATER DEPARTMENT 


30 


30 







49 LIGHT. HEAT. POWER 


1 




1 





61 PNE ARTS MUSEUMS 


7 






7 


62 ASIAN ART MUSEUM 


1 


1 







70 CHIEF ADMJN OFFICER 


1 


1 







71 REAL ESTATE 


4 




2 


2 


72 COUNTY AGRICULTURE 


1 




1 





75 ELECTRJCrTY 


10 




6 


4 


78 RECORDER 


1 




1 





79 PueLCADMMSTRATOR 


1 




1 





DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 










63 PUBUCHEALTH 


54 


11 


27 


16 


85 LAGUNAHONDA 


101 




65 


36 


86 S.F.GENERALHOSPrrAL 


134 




64 


50 


87 MENTAL HEALTH 


35 


2 


23 


10 


TOTAL DPH 


324 


13 


199 


112 


SO PUBUCWORKS 


135 


72 


22 


41 


91 PURCHASER 


20 


2 


8 


10 


88 CONV&mON FACUTTES 


1 




1 





TOTAL 


1336 


370 


466 


500 



' Positions mandated by charter lection 8.51 7-1 (primarty due to 10C* non-General 
Find support) or those recommended for retortion. 



hi 




GOOOiC t- BROWN 
rncsioc" 



CLAIRE CALOWELL 

Executive vnCE rnesiOEMI 



BAY J. ANTONIO 

SECRETARY-TREASURES 



WILLIAM K.Y. JUNG 

RECORCNNG SECRETARY 



VIC£-PR£SID£*TS 

JOE W. BARNES 
LeJEUNE CARTER 
WILLIAM V. SISK 



EXECUTIVE SOi-0 

CHARLES FLIN'TROY 

WESTON HATCH 

WILSON MILLS 
FRANCIS TOLLIVER 



SARITA SRITT 

<VNN OrVTSiO.* Chaj"£ =:5C: 



^LUaclniieac II 
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION oF^N^'F^fc^X 

LOCAL 2S0-A AFL-CIO 

GGO Hw» SimcCI. 3mi> FtOOO - S«n FoamOSOO. CA 94105 

TCL: (115) 543-4970 - (AX: (IIS) S43-S9<:<: 



April 17. 1992 



PROPOSITION "A" REVIEW COMMITTEE 
City & County of San Francisco 
Room 200, City Hall 
San Francisco, .CA 91102 

Dear Committee Members: 

Transport Workers Union, Local 250-A is very concerned about 
the affect and impact of reductions in service and personnel as 
a result of Proposition "A" - the 3+3 retirement plan, and 
foresee it as a major and immediate problem our members face. 

Charter amendment language contained in Section 8.517-2 

EARLY SERVICE RETIREMENT, items (2), (3J, and («!] which 
outlines mandated positions according to specific criteria is of 
serious concern to Local 250-A and our members. In r'act, the 
language as approved by the voters was the result of the meet 
and confer process held between the City and this Union which 
resulted with a ratified MOU which provides the following: 

"There will be no layoff of employees covered by 
any of the TWU Memoranda of Understanding or 
reduction of budgeted positions covered by any of 
the TWU Memoranda of Understanding from the 
date of this letter until the end of fiscal year 
1991-1992. Thereafter, before there is a layoff of 
employees or a reduction of budgeted positions, 
the City and the PUC will meet and confer with 
this Union as necessary." 

This Local Union views any reduction in service or shrrtage of 
operators as a violation of our current MOU, as »=i; as a 
violation of the TIOF funding as related to dow.nio.-~ service. 
Any proposed reductions in service or operating :;:'sonnel 
should be offsetted and made up by TIDF funds. 



Further, we will oppose any service cuts or any re: 
MUNI's operating budget due to the hardship these 
create on our hard working members. There she-- 
question that the work our members perform is esse": 
delivery of public service to the City and to the cit:;r 
Francisco. Any cuts would only aggravate and exoC" 
■; 1 1 1 ia t ion . 



48 



.C.ion in 
: _ ; s will 
be no 
in the 
; of San 
.?.:e the 



Attachment -" 
Pape 3 of U 




a 



Transport Workers QJuiou of America 

Affiliated with American Federation of Laltnr and Congress oj Industrial Organizations 

660 Howard Streel. Third Floor - San Francisco. CA 94105 - (415) 495-7326 



IED PETERSON. II 

Presidcnl 



April 17, J99Z 



.ICE FIALKIN 
Baeculive Vice-President 



:rrel cross 

Secre'.ary-Tres surer 



DM PIGGE5 

1st Vice-Pres.Jern 



AXE JACKSON 
2nd Vice-Pi-eslcen: 



ENNETH ; 
Recordlnc Se 



3NAID A 
Executive 5; 



RODRIGl 
-e'.iry 



J ONES 



Proposition A Rev-tew Committee 
San TttancJJhzo City and County 
City Wall 

Vzan. CommittZZ mzmbeAA: 

Tka, Izttzn. zxptizhhzs qua fainm beJiizi that all 9/39 TranhiZ 
Supervisor rzquiAiXionh shall, be back- faillzd undzx thz 
Proposition A, Early Retirement, Charter Amendment. Our 
position Is baszd on thz faolloiaing: 

1) The. 9/39 Transit Supervisors qualify ah mandatzd 
positions azc.on.ding to thz languagz ofi Szction i. 517-2 
o£ thz Chartzr. Thzy meet thz znJJtznJLa under numb zaa [2] , 
(31, and (4) o(> Szction t.S17-t[b\. 

.2) Thz Languagz o^ Proposition A was nzgotiatzd to 
qualify thz &ull return o£ thz 9/39' s in total. It loat 
nzgotiatzd ah pant o^ thz Freeze agn.zzmznt. Tor thz Coa- 
miXtzz to dzny this tradz o^ and rz^ahz to ^lll thziZ 
rzqulsitlons would be in violation of, thz Freeze cgr<.zcz>it. 



Additionally, we &zzl thz 9140 Transit Manage*. I and 
9/4/ Transit Manages*. II positions arz protzctzd u.ndz 
number (3) o^ Chartzr Szction £.5J7-Z(b) ah well. S 
thz M.O.U. hiAz Izttzr nzgotiatzd in May Oj /99/ io.'m 
bzllzvz huppotith thz ^il&^ng o thzsz pohitionh. 

We hope you will consider thz abci'C and grant Muci : 
rzqulhitlonh vital to thz dzlivzrij ofa ha^z, COiirttd: 
evident tranhit ^zrviczs in compliance itfi£ii oivi .':; 
Understanding . 



-■LA.ZAA.a 

-.close 



ois 



SincCAzly , 
, i/cnt 



.('(\ 



<LC_ 



£ 



/ 



vcrd ■';.•; l'tc< 



I . Aln /!-/.<•! 

III. Jclli'SCl! 

I «:.'!» i ii 



49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 7 -File 28-92-5 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Juvenile Probation Department 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Director of the Department of 

Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the 
health, safety and welfare of citizens and employees of the 
City by performing necessary work to abate fire, health and 
life safety hazards at the Youth Guidance Center. 

$1,685,029 

Correctional Facility Bond Act of 1988 ($1,351,637) and a 
previously approved Supplemental Appropriation of $333,392 
in General Fund monies (File 101-91-56). These monies were 
specifically appropriated for repairs to the Youth Guidance 
Center. The $333,392 would leverage the $1,351,637 in State 
Bond funds. 

Description: The Juvenile Probation Department reports that, in order to 

protect the health and safety of juvenile offenders and staff, 
there is a need for emergency repair work to be performed to 
(1) upgrade the fire safety system at the Youth Guidance 
Center and (2) replace plumbing fixtures in Cottage B5 at 
Juvenile Hall and glass windows in all cottages at Juvenile 
Hall. The Department advises that a recent fire inspection at 
the Youth Guidance Center determined that certain safety 
standards were not being met. The upgrading of the fire 
safety system at the Youth Guidance Center to bring the 
building into compliance with current fire and safety codes, 
would include the installation of fire alarms, fire detectors, 
horns, strobes (lights which blink on and off in response to a 
fire), call stations (used to report a fire), fire walls and other 
building modifications necessary to enhance the containment 
of fires. According to the Department, the State of California 
Youth Authority has threatened to decertify Juvenile Hall if 
the plumbing fixtures in Cottage B5 and the glass windows in 
all of the cottages are not replaced. The Department advises 
that the outmoded plumbing fixtures pose a health hazard 
and the glass windows pose a health and safety hazard in 
situations wherein they are shattered during attempts by 
juvenile offenders to escape. The glass window panes would 
be replaced by safety glass, which would resist shattering 
and in addition would be stronger, which would enhance 
security. 

The Juvenile Probation Department reports that it formally 
declared this work an emergency to the Juvenile Probation 
Commission on April 14, 1992. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYSr 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



The Department of Public Works (DPW) reports that, in 
accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, the 
Department would use expedited procedures to issue an 
Invitation for Bids for the necessary construction work 
required to abate the fire, health and life safety hazards at the 
Youth Guidance Center and Juvenile Hall. Mr. Howard 
Wong of the DPW, Bureau of Architecture anticipates that 
the construction work would commence on or before 
September of 1992, and would be completed within ten 
months. The estimated cost to perform this necessary 
emergency work, as prepared by DPW, is detailed below: 

Construction Contractors $1,070,322 

DPW, Bureau of Architecture 236,895 

DPW, Bureau of Engineering 101,740 

Permits 14,776 
Contingency (18% of construction, architecture, 

engineering and permit costs) 261.296 

Total $1,685,029 

Comments: 1. The Juvenile Probation Department reports that the 

emergency work at Juvenile Hall must be underway or 
completed by the time the State of California Youth Authority 
performs its annual inspection in the Fall of 1992, in order to 
avoid decertification. 

2. Mr. Wong reports that the $261,296 (18 percent) for 
contingencies is based on the broad scope of the emergency 
work to be performed and the fact that the buildings involved 
are older and may require significant asbestos work, as well 
as other work which cannot be anticipated at this time. Mr. 
Wong advises that it is not unusual for projects of this type to 
have contingency amounts which reflect all phases of the 
project. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SI IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



Item 8 -File 28-92-6 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description 



Fire Department 

Resolution authorizing the Fire Department to take 
necessary measures to protect the health and welfare of the 
Firefighters of Station 28 by performing the necessary work to 
restore the integrity of Fire Station 28 at 1418 Stockton Street 
against water leakage into its walls and foundation. 

Not to exceed $60,000 

1986 Fire Protection Bond Funds 

The Fire Department reports that at the end of January 1992, 
severe water leakage occurred in the basement and kitchen 
area of Fire Station 28, as a result of water seepage into the 
foundation caused by heavy rains. The Department advises 
that the foundation is over eighty years old. According to the 
Department, the leakage is concentrated in the foundation 
and walls of the building and has caused extremely damp 
conditions which have resulted in mold buildup. 

The Fire Department formally declared that an emergency 
condition existed due to the damage caused by the water 
leakage on April 15, 1992. The Department did not declare an 
emergency earlier because they were not initially aware of 
the health hazard that existed, until some of the Firefighters 
experienced health problems. These problems were 
determined by the Department's physician to result from the 
damp conditions and mold buildup. 

Deputy Chief Frank Scales of the Fire Department reports 
that the Fire Department, in accordance with Section 6.30 of 
the Administrative Code, will use expedited procedures to 
issue an Invitation for Bids for the necessary construction 
work required. Deputy Chief Scales advises that the $60,000 
estimate for the construction work, which would involve 
injecting water proofing material into the foundation, is 
based on a preliminary estimate received from a contractor. 
Deputy Chief Scales anticipates that the construction work 
would commence by May 25, 1992 and would be completed 
within a month. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Comment: As noted above, the proposed legislation includes an 

estimated amount not to exceed $60,000 for the proposed 
construction, which is based on an estimate received from a 
contractor. However, Mr. Robert Jew of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) reports that the contractor's estimate, is 
based on the cost of construction only. According to Mr. Jew 
the actual estimated cost of the emergency repair is $96,800, 
based on construction costs, design and engineering costs 
and construction management costs. Therefore, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to reflect an estimated amount 
of $96,800 instead of not to exceed $60,000. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed legislation to reflect an estimated 
amount of $96,800 instead of not to exceed $60,000 for the 
emergency repairs and approve the legislation as amended. 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 9 -File 114-92-2 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992. 



Department: 
Item: 



Purpose: 



Description; 



Public Works, Bureau of Building Inspection 

Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter 1, Sections 330, 331, 
332, and 333 of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Building 
Code) to increase various fees imposed by the Department of 
Public Works, Bureau of Building Inspection (BBI). 

To increase permit fees relating to new construction, 
alterations, and related activities in order to fully recover 
costs of the Department of Public Works, Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

The proposed ordinance would amend various sections of 
the San Francisco Municipal Code (Building Code) relating 
to fees charged by the Department of Public Works, Bureau 
of Building Inspection (BBI), by increasing those fees. BBI 
proposes to increase its fees by an average of five percent 
(refer to attachment for summary of proposed fee 
increases). BBI fees were last increased an average of 15 
percent in July of 1991. Two-thirds of the FY 1991-92 fee 
increase, or 10 percent, was to offset new and increased 
costs, including the costs of State-imposed requirements. 
One-third of the FY 1991-92 fee increase, or five percent, 
was proposed to offset salary standardization costs. 

Under the proposed ordinance, Section 330.1 would be 
amended to increase various building permit fees as shown 
on pages 1 and 2 of the attachment. Building permit fees 
represent the largest single source of revenues for BBI. 
These fee increases would range from 2.63 percent to 6.67 
percent. The proposed fee increases would affect all 
building and alteration permits. In addition, the following 
miscellaneous permit fees would be increased under 
Section 330.1 (percentages and fee levels summarized in 
attachment): 

- Sign Permits 
Bleacher Permits 

_ Chimney and Flue Permits 

- Demolition of Building Permits 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



— Extra Permit Work 

— Garage Door Permits 
_ Grading Permits 

House Moving Investigation and Permit Fee 

_ Recommencement of Work Not Completed 

— Re-roofing Permits 

— Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee 

— Sub-sidewalk Construction and Use Permit Fee 

All electrical permit fees would increase under the 
proposed amendments to Section 330.2. The increases for 
the electrical fees would range from 4.00 percent to 6.67 
percent, with two minor exceptions concerning very low 
dollar amounts. Electrical fee increases are summarized 
on pages 2 through 5 of the attachment. 

All plumbing permit fees (Section 330.3) and apartment and 
hotels licensing fees (Section 333.1) would be increased. 
Plumbing permit fee increases would range from 4.83 
percent to 6.67 percent (see pages 5 and 6 of attachment), 
while apartment and hotels licensing fees would be 
increased by approximately five percent (see page 10 of 
attachment). 

Other proposed fee increases include (amended Municipal 
Code Sections and attachment page numbers in 
parenthesis): 

— Permit application and plan review fees (Section 331, 
pages 6-7) 

— Public notification and record keeping fees (Section 332, 
page 7) 

— Reproduction and Dissemination of Public Information 
(Section 332.1, pages 7-8) 

— Fees for Inspections, Surveys, and Reports (Section 
332.2, pages 8-9) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

- Penalties, Hearings and Code Enforcement 
Assessments (Section 332.3, page 9) 

- Refund fees (Section 332.4, page 9) 

- Miscellaneous Fees (Section 332.5, pages 9-10) 

- Hotel Conversion Ordinance fees (Section 333.2, pages 
10-11) 

- Energy Conservation fees (Section 333.3, page 11). 

Comments: 1. The Board of Supervisors approved legislation in July of 

1988 establishing a Building Inspection Special Revenue 
Fund in which construction-related permit fees are 
deposited. As such, these permit fees can only be used to 
recover the costs of BBI. As stated above, the proposed fee 
increases in 1991-92 were intended to recover increased 
costs of salary standardization for BBI personnel. However, 
salaries were not increased for FY 1991-92. Therefore, BBI 
collected the five percent increase in fees without incurring 
the expected salary standardization costs of approximately 
five percent. As a result, since FY 1988-89 and including the 
current fiscal year, BBI has accumulated approximately 
$2,430,961 in operating reserves. BBI classifies these funds 
as "prepaid inspection fees" and uses the monies for 
projects related to BBI services or to complete permit 
processing or inspections for which fees were previously 
paid. Shown below is the current status of BBI's "Prepaid 
Inspection Services Account." 

Prepaid Inspection 
Services Account 

Prior Years Carryforward $2,132,409 

Current Year Carryforward 

Fees and Interest 170,509 

FEMA/OES* Reimbursements 128.043 

298.552 



Balance carried forward to FY 1992-93 $2,430,961 

*Federal Emergency Management Agency/Office of 
Economic Stabilization 



2. Mr. Donald McConlogue of BBI reports that the proposed 
FY 1992-93 fee schedules were developed with the objective 
of increasing total estimated fee revenues by an overall 
average of five percent, or an estimated $854,867, annually. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



3. Salary standardization costs for BBI will increase by a 
total of approximately 9.3 percent in the FY 1992-93 budget, 
as computed by the Controller's Office. This 9.3 percent is 
the combined estimated percentage for both Fiscal Years 
1991-92 previously not paid and 1992-93. The fee increase of 
15 percent that went into effect July 1, 1991, five percent of 
which was to offset expected salary standardization costs 
that were not realized, is still in effect to offset part of the 
salary standardization costs of approximately 9.3 percent 
for FY 1992-93. 

4. Actual and estimated revenues and costs of BBI 
operations for FY 1990-91, FY 1991-92, and FY 1992-93 are 
summarized below: 

Comparison of BBI Revenues 
With Expenditures 





FY 1990-91 

Actual 


FY 1991-92 

Projection 

Based on Nine 

Month Actuals 


FY 1992-93 

Budget 

Based on 

Existing Fees 


FY 1992-93 Budget 

Based on Proposed 

Fee increases 


BBI Revenues 


$15,962,658 


$17,469,503* 


$17,650,422* 


$18.505.289 ' 


BBI Permit Processing 
Direct Costs 
Bureau overhead 
Department overhead 
Citywide overhead 


$13,177,604 

1,498,376 

1,103,629 

651.802 


$13,408,202 

1,777,568 

1,191,669 

793.512 


$14,166,332 

1,710,124 

1,411,133 

881.511 


$14,166,332 

1,710,124 

1,411,133 

881.511 


Subtotal, costs 


$16,431,411 


$17,170,951 


$18,169,100* 


$18,169,100 * 


FY 1992-93 Salary 
Standardization 
Total Estimated FY 1992-93 Costs 




1.267540 
$19,436,640 


1.267540 
$19,436,640 



Excess of BBI Revenues 
Over Permit Processing 
Costs (shortfall) 



($468,753) 



$298,552 ($1,786,218) 



($931,351) 



Estimates based on Controller's revenue and expenditure 
reports and the FY 1992-93 budget as submitted to the 
Mayor. The FY 1991-92 projected actual revenue amount 
from fees is $17,097,422. The remaining $372,081 
($17,097,422 plus $372,081 equals $17,469,503) is due to 
interest earnings. The FY 1992-93 budgeted revenue 
amount from the proposed fees is $17,952,289, which is 5.0 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

percent or $854,867 more than the $17,097,422 budgeted for 
FY 1992-93. The remainder of the estimated increase in FY 
1992-93 budgeted revenues consists of interest revenue of 
$400,000 and $153,000 in Mission Bay work for total 
estimated revenues of $18,505,289. 

5. If the proposed fee increases are enacted for FY 1992-93, 
BBI's excess of permit processing costs over revenues are 
estimated to be $931,351 (See Comment No. 4). The deficit of 
$931,351 would then offset the balance carried forward to FY 
1992-93 of $2,430,961 (See Comment No. 1) for a total of 
$1,499,610 balance carried forward to FY 1993-94. 

6. If the proposed fee increases are not enacted for FY 1992- 
93, BBI's deficit of permit processing costs over revenues is 
estimated to be $1,786,218. That estimated deficit of 
$1,786,218 would then be deducted from the $2,430,961 
balance carried forward to FY 1992-93. The surplus that 
would then be carried forward to FY 1993-94 would be an 
estimated $644,743 ($2,430,961 less $1,786,218). 

7. Mr. McConlogue reports that BBI has experienced 
monthly periods in which expenses have exceeded revenues 
by approximately $500,000. Mr. McConlogue states that an 
estimated surplus of $644,743 is an insufficient amount to 
cushion the Bureau against low revenue periods. 

Recommendation; As noted above, the proposed fee increases are intended to 
recover the increased costs from salary standardization. 
However, BBI's fee increase of approximately 15 percent in 
FY 1991-92 included a 5 percent increase for expected salary 
standardization costs, which were not subsequently 
enacted. As previously noted, disapproval of this fee 
increase would still leave BBI in a self-sustaining position 
and with a carryover surplus of approximately $644,743. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst believes that approval of the 
proposed amendment to increase fees is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Attachment 1 of 1 1 
% 
Current Proposed Chq 



Section 330.1: Building Permit Fees 
New Construction " 



Alteration Permit Fees 



Sign Permit fees 
Minimum 
Electric & non-electric* 



Ground Signs* 



$1.00-$500 


$19.50 


$20.50 


5.13% 


501-2,000 


$19.50 


$20.50 


5.13% 


2,001-25,000 


$62.75 


$66.00 


5.18% 


25,001-50,000 


$333.75 


$354.00 


6.07% 


50,001-100,000 


$542.25 


$573.00 


5.67% 


100,001-500,000 


$829.75 


$874.00 


5.33% 


500,001-1,000,000 


$2,729.75 


$2,875.00 


5.32% 


1 ,000,000 and up 


$4,729.75 


$5,001 .00 


5.73% 


$0 to 100,000 


1.3 times new construction permit fee 


100,001 and up 


$1,078.75 


$1,135.00 


5.21% 



(plus 1 .25 times new construction permit fee) 





$21.50 


$22.50 


4.65% 


Up to 50 sq ft 


$21.50 


$22.50 


4.65% 


51-100 sq ft 


$21.50 


$22.50 


4.65% 


101-200 sq ft 


$34.50 


$36.25 


5.07% 


201-400 sq ft 


$50.75 


$53.50 


5.42% 


Over 400 sq ft 


$65.25 


$69.50 


6.51% 


Up to 100 sq ft 


$21.50 


$22.50 


4.65% 


101-600 sq ft 


$21.50 


$22.50 


4.65% 


Over 600 sq ft 


$102.75 


$108.00 


5.11% 



Bleacher permit fees 

Permanent See new construction fee schedule 

Temporary 0-1 ,000 seats $20.75 $21.75 4.82% 

each additional 1 ,000 seats or fraction thereof $10.25 $10.75 4.88% 



Chimney and Flue fees 



Each chimney or flue 



$14.50 



$15.25 



5.17% 



Demolition Permit fees 
Construction Type 



Type II or V 
Other types 



$28.50 
$42.75 



$29.25 
$44.90 



2.63% 
5.03% 



' Fees for new construction costs above $500 are graduted, based on cost. 
" Graduated scale based on actual square footage. 



59 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 
Extra Permit Work 
Garage Door Permits 



Summary of proposed fee increases 

Current 



Attachment 2 of 1 1 
% 
Proposed Chg 



Two times the standard fees for work remaining 
to be done or not covered in original permit scope 



Each Garage door 



Grading Permits 




See new construction schedule 


House Moving Investigation and Permit Fee 








Investigation 


$54.25 $57.00 5.07% 




Permit 


$62.75 $66.00 5.18% 



Recommencement of work not completed 

Re-roofing permits 

Strong Motion Instrumentation Fee 



Standard Inspection Fee per Section 332.2 
$65.25 $68.50 4.98% 

Minimi $1.50 $1.60 6.67% 



Group R Occupancies of 3 stories or less, except hotels 

and motels. 

Hotels and Motels. All buildings greater than three 

stories. 

Sub-Sidewalk Construction and Use Permit fee 

Construction 

Use Permit: each 

Street space deposit 



Section 330.2: Electrical Permit Fees-Schedule A 

New Building 
Filing Fee 

Service Fee 



0-100 amps 
Each additional amp over 100 amps 

Circuit Fees (0-30 amp circuits) 

0-50 circuits, per circuit 
over 50 circuits, per circuit 

31-60 amp circuits, per circuit 
61 - 1 00 amp circuits, per circuit 
Over 100 amp circuits, per circuit 
Temporary wiring 

'" Times the valuation. 



0.0001*** 



0.00013"* 
0.00024*** 



See new construction schedule 
$26.00 $27.25 4.81% 

$39.50 $41.50 5.06% 



$26.00 



$27.25 4.81% 



$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 


$0.15 


$0.16 


6.67% 


$13.25 


$13.90 


4.91% 


$6.50 


$6.85 


5.38% 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


$20.75 


$21.80 


5.06% 


$20.75 


$21 B0 


5.06% 



one-hall ol above rate 



60 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Summary of proposed fee increases 

C urrent 



Attachment 3 of 1 1 
% 
Proposed Cfcfl 



Existing building work 



Filing Fee 

1-5 openings 

6-10 openings 

11 -15 openings 

16-20 openings 

21 -25 openings 

26-30 openings 

31 -35 openings 

36-40 openings 

41-45 openings 

46-50 openings 

51-60 openings 

61-70 openings 

71-80 openings 

81-90 openings 

91-100 openings 

over 100 openings" 



$26.00 

$22.75 

$45.50 

$57.00 

$79.75 

$90.50 

$102.75 

$113.50 

$124.50 

$136.50 

$147.25 

$158.75 

$170.25 

$182.25 

$193.25 

$204.25 

$1.50 



$27.30 

$23.90 

$47.80 

$59.85 

$83.75 

$95.05 

$107.90 

$119.20 

$130.75 

$143.35 

$154.60 

$166.70 

$178.80 

$191.35 

$202.90 

$214.45 

$1.60 



5.00% 
5.05% 
5.05% 
5.00% 
5.02% 
5.03% 
5.01% 
5.02% 
5.02% 
5.02% 
4.99% 
5.01% 
5.02% 
4.99% 
4.99% 
4.99% 
6.67% 



Openings include switches, convenience receptacles, lighting fixtures, fixed appliances, 
motors, transformers, fire warning and detector devices. 



Electrical Permit fees-Schedule B 



Filing Fee 

Minimum fee 

each outlet or switch 

each svc up to 100 amps 

Each Circuit 

Each transformer dimmer 

Connection of motors and generators 

0-10 hp 

11-50 hp 

51-100 hp 

ea. hp over 100 hp 

Electric appliance connection 

Per kilowatt or fraction thereof 



$26.00 

$26.00 

$1.00 

$13.00 

$2.00 

$1.00 



$2.00 
$2.25 
$2.50 
$3.00 



$2.00 



$27.30 


5.00% 


$27.30 


5.00% 


$1.05 


5.00% 


$13.65 


5.00% 


$2.10 


5.00% 


$1.05 


5.00% 


$2.10 


5.00% 


$2.35 


4.44% 


$2.65 


6.00% 


$3.15 


5.00% 



$2.10 



5.00% 



per opening 



61 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 

Range outlet connection, minimum 

Dryer outlet connection, minimum 

Fixed air heating devices, each 
Connection 

Cold cathode or Fluorescent 
lighting fixture 

Mercury vapor and similar 
lighting fixture 

Incandescent lighting 
fixture 

Activated electrical trench headers 
duct and electrical floor ducts 



Feeders: 



0-100 amps 
per ampere over 100 amps 



Underground Installations 
Fire alarms, pull stations incl outlets 
Fire alarms, visual and audio devices 
Fire alarms, detector control panels 
Fire sprinkler flow alarms 
Combustion detectors 
Electromagnetic hold open 
Low Energy Circuits 



each device 

each transformer 

each outlet 



reases 


Attacl 


iment 4 of 1 1 






% 


Current 


Proposed 


Chg 


$19.25 


$20.20 


4.94% 


$13.00 


$13.65 


5.00% 


$1.00 


$1.05 


5.00% 


$1.50 


$1.60 


6.67% 


$4.00 


$4.20 


5.00% 


$1.50 


$1.60 


6.67% 


$0.50 


$0.55 


10.00% 


$13.00 


$13.65 


5.00% 


$0.10 


$0.10 


0.00% 


$32.75 


$34.40 


5.04% 


$5.25 


$5.50 


4.76% 


$2.00 


$2.10 


5.00% 


$6.75 


$7.10 


5.19% 


$7.50 


$7.90 


5.33% 


$2.00 


$2.10 


5.00% 


$2.00 


$2.10 


5.00% 


$0.75 


$0.80 


6.67% 


$1.25 


$1.30 


4.00% 


$0.75 


$0.80 


6.67% 



62 



Summary o 


I proposed fee 


increases 


Attachment 5 of 1 1 


Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 




Current 


Proposed 




Electric Signs 










Exterior Signs 


0-20 lam 


$20.75 


$21.80 


5.06% 


Interior Signs 




$13.00 


$13.65 


5.00% 


Each group ol 10 lamps or portion thereof 








in excess of 20 




$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


Each interior or exterior 










sign circuit 




$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


Each Transformer or ballast in 










excess of 2 




$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


Sign flasher control 










device 




$4.00 


$4.20 


5.00% 


Plant Owner registration 












Each registration 


$130.50 


$137.50 


5.36% 


i 


sa. electrician regist. 


$7.00 


$7.35 


5.00% 




late charge 


$7.00 


$7.35 


5.00% 


Section 330.3: Plumbing Permit Fees 










Plumbing permits 




$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


Fixture & waste discharge device 




$13.50 


$14.20 


5.19% 


sump ejector 




$13.50 


$14.20 


5.19% 


rainwater leader 




$13.50 


$14.20 


5.19% 


gas permit 




$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


gas line, each, including one outlet 


per line 


$6.75 


$7.10 


5.19% 


Each additional gas outlet 




$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


water heater, each 




$11.75 


$12.35 


5.11% 


warm air furnace 




$40.50 


$42.55 


5.06% 


miscellaneous gas appliances 




$11.75 


S12.35 


5.11% 



63 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 

gas flues, each 

Water line permits, 1 4 outlets /line 

Each additional water outlet 

Solar panels: per each collector 

Lawn Sprinklers: each control valve 
or vacuum breaker 

Each additional sprinkler head 

Fire Sprinkler Systems 

Fire sprinkler piping removal or 
alterations 

Undergrd fire sprinkler piping sys. 

Replace fire sprinkler heads 1 -1 

Each additional head over 10 

Fire sprinkler piping installation 



1-10 sprinkler heads 

1 1 -500 sprinkler heads 

501 or more sprinkler heads 



Fire sprinkler systems flushing 
Sewer replacement or repair 
Side sewer installation or repair 
Minimum fee for all permits 
Section 331 : Building Permit Application and Plan Review fees 
Back Check fee 

Commencement of work not started 
Electrical Plan Review 



;es 


Attachment 6 of 1 1 






% 


ent 


Proposed 


Chg 


$14.50 


$15.25 


5.17% 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


$7.25 


$7.60 


4.83% 


$9.75 


$10.25 


5.13% 


$0.20 


$0.21 


5.00% 



$12.25 


$12.85 


4.90% 


$40.50 


$42.55 


5.06% 


$12.25 


$12.85 


4.90% 


$0.30 


$0.32 


6.67% 


$12.25 


$12.85 


4.90% 


$12.25 


$12.85 


4.90% 


$183.50 


$194.25 


5.86% 


$52.00 


$54.60 


5.00% 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


$40.50 


$42.55 


5.06% 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 



$54.25 


$72.45 


33.55% 


$130.50 


S137.05 


5.02% 


$69.00 


$72.45 


5.00% 



64 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Summary of proposed fee increases 

Current 



Attachment 7 of 1 1 
% 
Proposed £hg 



Expediter Fee 

Mechanical Plan Review 

Plan Review: New Construction, Alterations, 
Grading and Demolitions 

Plan Review under prior code 

Pre-application plan review 

Reduced plan review fee 25 percent of plan review 
fee, minimum 

Sign plan review, approved stdzd 
Other 



Site Permit surcharge 



less than $350,000 
over $350,000 



Section 332: Public Notification and Record Keeping Fees 



$24.75 $26.00 5.05% 

$69.00 $72.45 5.00% 

65 percent of new construction permit schedule 
$82.25 $86.35 4.98% 

$130.50 $137.05 5.02% 



$19.50 



$20.50 



5.13% 



$8.00 $8.40 5.00% 

50 percent of Sign Permit Schedule 



$130.50 $137.05 5.02% 

$779.25 $818.20 5.00% 



Structural Addition notice 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


Affidavit Record maintenance 


$6.75 


$7.10 


5.19% 


Posting of notices (change of use) 


$23.25 


$24.40 


4.95% 


Requested notice of permit issuance 


$32.75 


$34.40 


5.04% 


30" by 30" sign 


$13.00 


$13.65 


5.00% 


Notice of demolition permit issuance 








One area 


$39.50 


$41.50 


5.06% 


Multiple areas 


$117.50 


$123.50 


5.11% 


Notification sign 








300 ft notification letters at filing 


$62.75 


$65.90 


5.02% 


Residential tenant notification 


$35.00 


$36.75 


5.00% 


300 ft notification letters at issuance 


$46.50 


$48.85 


5.05% 



Section 332.1 : Reproduction and Dissemination of public information 

Certification of copies 
1-10 pages 
Each additional 10 pages or fraction thereof 



$6.75 
$1.50 



$7.10 
$1.60 



5.19% 
6.67% 



65 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Electrostatic Reproduction 
Each page photocopy 
Minimum charge 
35mm duplicards from roll Film 

Microfilm Hard Copy prints 

8 1/2* x 11" copy from 16mm film 

24"x18" copy from 35mm film 

"half-sized" copy from 35mm film 

8.5" x 11" copy from 16mm 

Minimum Microfilm reprod. charge 

Replacement of approved plans/specs 

Each Sheet of plans 

Each 50 pages of specs or fraction 



reases 


Attachment 8 of 1 1 






% 


Current 


Proposed 


Cbfl 


$0.75 


$0.80 


6.67% 


$3.50 


$3.70 


5.71% 


$1.50 


$1.60 


6.67% 


$1.50 


$1.60 


6.67% 


$2.50 


$2.65 


6.00% 


$3.00 


$3.15 


5.00% 


$1.00 


$1.05 


5.00% 


$3.50 


$3.70 


5.71% 


$4.00 


$4.20 


5.00% 


$6.75 


$7.10 


5.19% 



Section 332.2: Inspections, Surveys, and Reports 

Off-hours Inspection 
Pre-Application Inspection 
Re-Inspection Fee 

Report of Residential Records 

Standard Inspection Fee 

Survey of non-residential building 



1.5 times Standard Inspection fee 

Two times Standard Inspection fee 

Standard Inspection Fee 

$26.00 $27.30 5.00% 

$65.25 $68.50 4.98% 

Two times the Standard Inspection Fee 



Maximum charge 


$2,596.00 


$2,725.80 


5.00% 


Survey of Residential Building 








Single Family Dwelling 


$390.25 


$409.75 


5.00% 


Two Family Dwelling 


$390.25 


$409.75 


5.00% 


Apartment houses: 3 units 


$454.00 


$476.70 


5.00% 


Apartment houses: 4-10 units"** 


$454.00 


$476.70 


5.00% 


Apartment houses: 1 1 -20 units'*" 


$854.00 


$896.70 


5.00% 


Apartment Houses: 21-40 units"" 


$1,282.25 


$1,351.00 


5.36% 


Apartment houses: over 41 units"" 


$1,853.50 


$1,951.00 


5.26% 


Hotels 








1-10 guest rooms 


$494 00 


$518.70 


5.00% 


11 -20 guest rooms"" 


$•194 00 


$518.70 


5.00% 


21 -40 guest rooms"" 


$701.50 


$737.00 


5.06% 


Over 41 guestrooms"" 


$986.75 


$1,043.00 


5.70% 



66 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Attachment 9 of 1 1 
% 
Current Proposed Chg 



Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 

*"* Graduated scale. 

Section 332.3: Penalties, Hearings, Code Enforcement Assessments 

Abatement Appeals Board filing fee 
Board of Examiners 

each variance or interp of code 

each appeal for approval of substitute 

materials or methods of construction 

Director's abatement orders, per hr 

Emergency Order 

Handicapped Access Appeals Board Ring Fee 

Lien Recordation Charges 

Work w/o permit: investigation fee; penalty 

Building, Electrical, Plumbing or Mechanical Code violations 



Standard Inspection Fee 



$52.00 


$54.60 


5.00% 


$90.50 


$95.05 


5.03% 


$227.25 


$238.60 


4.99% 


$53.25 


$55.90 


4.98% 


$42.75 


$44.90 


5.03% 


$143.75 


$150.95 


5.01% 


$120.75 


$126.80 


5.01% 



Nine times the applicable fee plus the 
original permit fee 



Section 332.4: Refunds 



Building Permit- amount paid less 

Demolition Permit- amount paid less 

Electrical Permit- amount paid less 

Grading Permit- amount paid less 

Plan Review- amount paid less 

Plumbing Permit- amount paid less 



Section 332.5: Miscellaneous 

Building numbers, each entrance 
Disability access coordinator 
Extension of time: 



$84.50 


$88.70 


4.97% 


$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 


$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 


$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 


$26.00 


$27.30 


5.00% 


$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 


$15.75 


$16.55 


5.08% 


$9.75 


$0.00 


-100.00% 



Each permit application extension 

Each permit extension 

Each inspection performed 



$31.25 $32.80 4.96% 

Standard Inspection Fee 
Standard Inspection Fee 



67 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 

Product Approvals: 



Section 333.1 : Apartment House and Hotel License Fee Schedule 
Apartment Houses (annual basis): 



of proposed fee 


increases 


Attach 


merit 10 of 


11 




Current 


Proposed 


% 
Chg 




initial or reinstatement 


$130.50 


$137.50 


5.36% 




modification or revision 


$45.50 


$47.80 


5.05% 




renewal (every 2 years) 


$65.25 


$68.50 


4.98% 





Hotels (annual basis): 



Less than 20 rooms 


$106.50 


$111.85 


5.02% 


20-29 rooms 


$135.25 


$142.00 


4.99% 


30-39 rooms 


$179.00 


$187.95 


5.00% 


40-49 rooms 


$236.50 


$248.35 


5.01% 


50-59 rooms 


$327.75 


$344.15 


5.00% 


60 rooms or over 


$385.25 


$404.50 


5.00% 


Change of ownership 


$32.50 


$34.15 


5.08% 


Less than 20 rooms 


$163.00 


$171.15 


5.00% 


20-29 rooms 


$192.00 


$201.60 


5.00% 


30-39 rooms 


$237.00 


$248.85 


5.00% 


40-49 rooms 


$292.00 


$306.60 


5.00% 


50-59 rooms 


$383.00 


$402.15 


5.00% 


60-69 rooms 


$442.00 


$464.10 


5.00% 


100-149 rooms 


$477.00 


$500.85 


5.00% 


1 50 rooms and over 


$536.25 


$563.05 


5.00% 


Change of ownership 


$32.50 


$34.15 


5.08% 



Section 333.2: Hotel Conversion Ordinance Fee Schedule 

Annual Unit usage report 

Challenge to claims of exemption: 
Usage report 

Claim of exemption based on low- 
Income housing: 

Claim of exemption based on partially 
completed conversion 

Complaint of Unlawful Conversion 

Determination by Real Estate Department and cost 
of independent appraisals 



$52.00 $54.60 5.00% 

$17.00 $17.85 5.00% 

$205.25 $215 50 4.99% 

$410.50 $43105 5.01% 

$17.00 $17.85 5.00% 

$973.25 $1,02190 5.00% 



68 



Summary of proposed fee increases 



Section/ Fee type/ Fee level 



Attachment 11 of 11 
% 
Current Proposed C_hg. 



Initial Unit Usage Report 

Permit to convert 

Request for hearing to exceed 25% tourist season 
rental limit 

Inspection Fee 

Hearing Officer's statement of exemption 



$205.25 $215.50 4.99% 

$345.00 $362.25 5.00% 



Standard Inspection Fee 
$205.25 $215.50 4.99% 



Section 333.3: Energy Conservation Fee Schedule 



Initial Inspections 








1 and 2 family dwellings 


$49.50 


$52.00 


5.05% 


Apart houses & Resid Hotels 








up to 20 rooms 


$55.50 


$58.30 


5.05% 


20-29 rooms 


$66.50 


$69.85 


5.04% 


30-39 rooms 


$79.75 


$83.75 


5.02% 


40-49 rooms 


$88.25 


$92.65 


4.99% 


50-59 rooms 


$99.00 


$103.95 


5.00% 


60 rooms and over 


$111.00 


$116.55 


5.00% 


Compliance Inspections: 








1 and 2 family dwellings 


$24.75 


$26.00 


5.05% 


Apart houses & Resid Hotels 








up to 20 rooms 


$27.25 


$28.60 


4.95% 


20-29 rooms 


$32.50 


$34.15 


5.08% 


30-39 rooms 


$39.50 


$41.50 


5.06% 


40-49 rooms 


$44.25 


$46.50 


5.08% 


50-59 rooms 


$49.50 


$52.00 


5.05% 


60 rooms and over 


$55.50 


$58.30 


5.05% 


Energy Reports and Certificates 


$9.50 


$10.00 


5.26% 


Filing Fee for appeals 


$41.00 


$43.05 


5.00% 


Certification of qualified energy 








Inspector 


$19.50 


$20.50 


5.13% 



69 



.26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 10 -File 161-92-1 

Department: Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) 

Item: Ordinance approving the issuance by the San Francisco 

Redevelopment Agency of Multifamily Housing Refunding 
Mortgage Revenue Bonds in an aggregate principal amount 
not to exceed $75 million for the purposes of its Residential 
Construction Financing Program for various multifamily 
housing developments. 

Amount: Not to exceed $75 million 

Description; The Redevelopment Agency is requesting authorization to 

issue multifamily housing refunding mortgage revenue 
bonds, which the Agency would use to refinance six 
development projects that include affordable housing. For a 
list of these six projects, with the amount of the original bond 
issue, see attachment. 

According to Mr. Bob Gamble of SFRA, new Federal 
legislation allows the Redevelopment Agency to refund bond 
issues. The purpose of the bond refunding would be to obtain 
a lower interest rate on the new bonds than the interest rate 
being paid on the existing bonds. Half of the savings gained 
by such refunding, according to the new Federal legislation, 
is to accrue to the United States Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD) and half of the savings is to 
accrue to the Redevelopment Agency on the condition that the 
Redevelopment Agency uses the savings for affordable 
housing, Mr. Gamble advises. SFRA plans to use the savings 
from the refinancing for use on current SFRA projects. Mr. 
Gamble advises that five of the projects to be refunded if the 
proposed resolution is approved would be included under new 
Federal legislation. 

The sixth project, Cathedral Hill Plaza West, is known as an 
80-20 project, Mr. Gamble reports, where a private developer 
builds in cooperation with the Redevelopment Agency, 
providing 80 percent of the housing units at market rate and 
20 percent as affordable housing. Mr. Gamble advises that 
the bonds sold to finance this project will expire December 1, 
1992, so that the developer, Western Commercial Partnership 
#1, will be required to repay the bonds on or before that date. 
According to Mr. Gamble, the developer has asked that tax 
exempt bonds be issued to extend the original bonds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Momo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Gamble, Western Commercial 

Partnership #1, the developer for Cathedral Hill Plaza West, 
could extend the bonds expiring December 1, 1992 with a bank 
loan. However, a tax exempt bond issue would be less costly. 
Mr. Gamble advises that if the developer defaults on the bond 
repayment, HUD would assume control of the development. 
Since Federal agencies do not pay property taxes, the City 
would lose property taxes on Cathedral Hill Plaza West if the 
developer defaulted on the expiring bond issue and HUD took 
over the project. A tax-exempt bond issue is Federally 
subsidized, in that the Federal government forfeits revenue 
on tax-exempt bonds. The City and County of San Francisco 
would not be liable for any projects in case of a default, 
according to Mr. Gamble. 

2. Mr. Gamble advises that the Cathedral Hill Plaza West 
bond issue was flexible, so that the interest rate fluctuated 
weekly according to the market. Therefore, Mr. Gamble 
advises that refunding the Cathedral Hill Plaza West bond 
issue would result in little savings to SFRA, if any. 

3. According to Mr. Gamble, SFRA expects to receive an 
interest rate of between 7 and 7.2 percent on the new bonds 
issues. The original bonds were sold at the following interest 
rates: (1) Wharf Plaza II at 8.75 percent; (2) Northridge at 12 
percent; (3) Serenity Towers at 11.9 percent; (4) Mariposa 
Apartments at 11.4 percent; and (5) Mercy Terrace at 11.4 
percent. 

4. The total amount of the original bonds issues for the six 
projects was $72,416,000. Mr. Gamble advises that the 
proposed refunding would be in the amount of the original 
bonds, or $72,416,000. The current bonds are scheduled to 
mature between May 1, 2005 and August 15, 2024. The 
proposed new bonds would mature at the same times, 
between May 1, 2005 and August 15, 2024. 

5. Mr. Gamble reports that given an interest rate of from 7 
to 7.2 percent, over the remaining life of the bonds, $750,000 is 
for Serenity Towers, $700,000 for Mariposa Apartments, and 
$700,000 for Mercy Terrace, for a total of $2,150,000 is 
anticipated to be saved from the proposed refinancing. Of 
this, SFRA would receive 50 percent, or $1,075,000. According 
to the restrictions of the new Federal legislation, as noted 
above, this projected $1,075,000 would be required to be 
expended for affordable housing. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



6. Mr. Gamble advises that refunding Northridge may not 
result in any savings, because such a refunding could not 
occur until 1997, when the current bonds could be called. 
During the period before the bonds are called, funds would be 
deposited in an escrow account in an amount sufficient to 
generate revenue to pay the debt service on the current bonds. 
Because such an escrow account would pay relatively low 
interest, and since funds would remain in the escrow 
account until 1997 when the current bonds could be called, 
refunding Northridge bonds might not result in savings. The 
amount of the Northridge bond issue is $20,760,000. 

Mr. Gamble advises that refunding Wharf Plaza II bonds 
might also fail to result in savings. According to Mr. 
Gamble, Wharf Plaza II bonds are taxable. The interest rate 
on the current bonds at Wharf Plaza II, as noted above, is 
8.75 percent. According to Mr. Gamble, 8.75 percent for 
taxable bonds is at or below the current market. If the market 
rate is not below the interest rate on bonds, savings do not 
accrue by refunding. The amount of the Wharf Plaza II bond 
issue is $7,526,000. According to Mr. Gamble, SFRA would 
determine whether savings would accrue through refunding 
the Wharf Plaza II and Northridge bonds before it carried out 
the project. 

7. Mr. Gamble cautions that because many factors determine 
the successful implementation of a bond issue, there is a 
possibility that the bonds might not be refunded, or that 
savings would not accrue because of the refunding. For 
example, Mr. Gamble advises that although the private 
developers are currently in favor of the proposed refunding, 
the developers might change their minds. In addition, the 
market might change. However, Mr. Gamble reports that the 
proposed bond refunding is anticipated to be implemented 
without problems and to result in the savings noted above. 

8. According to Mr. Gamble, all of the projects except 
Cathedral Hill Plaza West are Section 8 projects sponsored by 
HUD. When the bonds were issued, HUD included a 
requirement that SFRA attempt to refund the bonds if such a 
refunding would result in savings. Thus, SFRA is legally 
bound to refund these bonds, Mr. Gamble advises. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Attachment A 



Attachment 



Project 



Wharf Plaza II 



Number 

ofUnits Location 



114 Kearny and Francisco Wharf Plaza II 

Partnership 



S7.526 



Northridge 



300 1 Ardath Court 



All Hallows Community 
Development Corporation 



S20.760 



Serenity Towers 



73 308 Eddy Street 



Herald Hotel Associates 



Mariposa Apartments 



63 2445 Mariposa Street 



Mission Housing 
Development Corporation 



S4.610 



Mercy Terrace 



158 333 Baker Street 



Mercy Services Corporation 



S9.915 



Cathedral Hill Plaza 
West (Webster Tower 
and Terrace) 



157 1489 Webster Street 



Western Commercial 
Partnership 



S24.450 



73 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 11 - File 100-91-7 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
29, 1992. 

The item is a hearing to consider the status of the City's economic vitality 
and business climate. 

According to the State Employment Development Department (EDD), the 
local and regional economy of San Francisco and the Bay Area is characterized 
primarily by a large and growing service sector. The service sector comprised 
33.3% of jobs in San Francisco County in 1988. Below is a breakdown of jobs within 
San Francisco County in 1988 (the last year for which data are available), as 
determined by EDD, with projected percentage changes in the size of each sector 
through 1993. The substantial growth in the service sector is attributable to the 
strength of business services, engineering, accounting and research services, 
medical services, and legal services, and rapid expansion in the hotel industry. 

Major San Francisco Industries and Projected Changes in Employment 

Projected 
Percentage Increases Percentage 

ofS. F. (Decreases) from of S. F. 

Employment (1988) 1988-1993 * Employment (1993) 

35.9% 

15.8 

14.0 

13.0 

6.7 
6.7 
5.3 

Total Employment 100.0% 3.4 100.0% 

* Column 2 shows the expected percentage change in employment between 1988 and 1993 by 
industry. Due to variations in the size of each industry (Column 1), and the projected increase of 
3.4% in San Francisco's employment between 1988 and 1993, the net effect by 1993 cannot be 
obtained by simply adding the percentage changes shown by industry. Column 3 reflects the 
expected effect on San Francisco employment of these changes on each sector relative to its size. 

Table 1 on the following page reflects the number of jobs to be gained or lost 
between 1988-93, based on the EDD projections, which were issued in June 1991. 
The second table below shows the relative contribution of each sector of the 
economy on the total expected change in San Francisco employment. 

The tables can be interpreted as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

74 



Services 33.3% 


11.4 


Government 16.1 


1.7 


Retail Trade 13.9 


4.6 


Finance, Insurance & Real 




Estate (FIRE) 13.9 


-2.7 


Manufacturing 7.4 


-6.3 


Transportation and Public Utilities 7.1 


-2.3 


Wholesale Trade 5.6 


-3.5 


Mining and construction 2.7 


-4.5 



■ PROJECTED SOBERS OF J B S 





1983 


V«1N^ J. Ol 


1993 


1 AliL 


t 1 IS 


>88-93 




INDUSTRIES 


Sectors 


INDUSTRIES 


Sectors 


CHANGE 


TOTAL EHPLOYHENT 


560,500 




579, 


500 




18,900 


K I S" 1 KG/CONSTRUCT I ON 




15,400 






14,700 


(700) 


KAKUFACTURING 


41 .400 




38, 


800 




(2,600) 


soncurable 


32,900 




31, 


600 




(1,300) 


7 ,i .- - 




5,700 






4,900 


(800) 


Apparel 




12,800 






12,900 


100 


FT i.-.ung/Publish 




10,300 






10,500 


200 


\j z De r 




4,100 






3,300 


(800) 


Durable 


3,500 




7 : 


, 200 




(1,300) 


Ketals 




1,800 






1,300 


(500) 


Transp. Equip. 




1,800 






1,100 


(700) 


Other 




4,900 






4,800 


(100) 


TRANSPORTATION/UTILITIES 


39,900 




39 


,000 




(900) 


Transportation 




20,600 






21,600 


1,000 


Cossunication/Utilities 




19,300 






17,400 


(1,900) 


VROLSSALE TRADE 




31,600 






30,500 


(1,100) 


RETAIL TRADE 


77,300 




31 


,400 




3,600 


Departaent stores 




8,100 






8,000 


(100) 


rood stores 




8,600 






9,600 


i ,000 


Apparel stores 




7,800 






8,100 


300 


Restaurants t bars 




32,400 






33,200 


800 


Other 




20,900 






22,500 


1,600 


FINASCE/INSURANCE/ 














/REAL ESTATE 


77,700 




75 


,600 




(2,100) 


Finance 




47,400 






46,000 


(1,400) 


Insurance/Real Estate 




30,300 






29,600 


(700) 


SERVICES 


186,600 




207 


,800 




21,200 


Hotel services 




17,000 






19,600 


2,600 


3usiness services 




47,000 






55,200 


3,200 


Health services 




25,000 






25,700 


700 


Legal services 




19,200 






23,500 


4,300 


Social services 




20,400 






21,700 


1,300 


Engineer, Architect, Hangi 


it 


28,200 






30,200 


2,000 


Other 




29,800 






31,900 


2,100 


GOVERNMENT 


90,200 




91 


,700 




1,500 


Federal 




29,500 






27,000 


(2,500) 


State and Local 




60,700 
560,600 






64,700 
579,500 


4,000 



Table 2 

PERCENT OF TOTAL PROJECTED CHANGE IK EHPLOYKENT 
1988 : 1993, ATTRIBUTED' TO INDUSTRIAL SECTORS 



Percent change 
Vithin industry 



TOTAL EHPLOiKi};? 


3.37 




HiKISG/COKSTEUCTIC:: 




(4.55 


■iASUPACTURING 


(5. 23] 




S : o r> d u r a b i e 


(3.95) 




r ■- o l 




|14.<H 


A;?arei 




0.78 


Printing/Publish 




1-94 


Other 




(19.51 


Durable 


(15.29) 




HeUls 




(27.73 


Transp. Equip. 




(38.89 


Other 




(2.04 



Percent share 
of total change 

100. DO 

(3.70) (3.70) 



(4.23) 

0.53 

1.06 

(4.23) 

(2.65) 
(3.70) 
(0.53) 



TSASSPORTATIOH/UIILITIES (2.26) 

Transportation 4.85 

Cosaunicat ion/Utilities (9-84) 

VEOLESALE TRADE (3.48) 

RETAIL TRADE 4.63 

Department stores (1.23) 

Food stores 11.63 

Apparel stores 3.85 

Restaurants t bars 2.47 

Other 7.66 



5.29 
(10.05; 

(5.32) (5.32) 

19.05 

(0.53) 
5.29 
1.55 
4.23 
8.47 



FINANCE/INSURANCE/ 
/REAL ESTATE 



'2.70] 



Finance 




(2.95 


Insurance/Real Estate 




(2.31 


SERVICES 


11.36 




Hotel services 




15.29 


Business services 




17.45 


Health services 




2.80 


Legal services 




22.40 


Social services 




6.37 


Engineer, Architect, Hangnt 




7.09 


Other 




7.05 


GOVERNMENT 


1.66 




Federal 




(8.47 


State and Local 




6.59 



112. 



7.9< 



(Uij 

(3.7CJ 



'; 3 . < i 
I3.3S 

3.7C 

22.75 

6.3s 

iC.DJ 

il.li 



(13.23) 
21.16 



76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

The net change in the level of employment in San Francisco, based on EDD 
estimates, is a net gain of 18,900 (579,500 less 560,600) jobs between 1988 and 1993 
(see Table 1). Table 2 shows the percentage share of this net change by industry. 
Of the total net gain of 18,900 jobs, approximately 19 percent of the change is 
attributable to the 3,600 new jobs expected to be added in the Retail Trade sector 
(3,600 is approximately 19 percent of 18,900). 

Manufacturing Industry. The Manufacturing sector is projected to 
contribute negatively to the change in San Francisco employment, offsetting 
approximately 14 percent of the gain in other sectors. The negative 14 percent 
share of job growth attributable to manufacturing represents the projected loss of 
2,600 jobs in this sector (18,900 net change in jobs x 14 percent equals 2,600). 

Although there is anticipated to be a decline overall in the manufacturing 
sector, San Francisco is now the third largest apparel manufacturing center in 
the U.S., according to the Chamber of Commerce, accounting for 30% of the 
manufacturing jobs in the City. Gains in this industry are due in part to shifts in 
the retail industry away from large department stores toward specialty and chain 
stores. Retail apparel stores are expected to exhibit employment gains between 
1988 and 1993 of 3.4%, according to EDD. 

Services Industry. The tables reflect dramatic growth in the Services sector. 
The projected change in employment in the Services sector of the economy exceeds 
the total number of jobs expected to be added; the Services sector contributes more 
than 112 percent of the job growth (18,900 net gain x 112 percent equals 21,200 new 
jobs in the Service Sector). In other words, job growth in this sector includes 
18,900 new jobs, equal to the net gain, as well as an additional 2,300 new jobs 
which offset some of the losses in others sectors. 

By representing employment changes within industries as a percentage of 
the net change in employment, Table 2 suggests the magnitude of each industry's 
projected effect on total job growth in the local economy. 

Labor Supply and Growth Mr. Douglas Perron, the labor market analyst at 
EDD, who projected these changes in employment, states that job growth through 
1993 is unlikely to be as strong as the statistics indicate, due to the recession 
which began in 1990. Therefore, the numbers should not be used as a reliable 
prediction of actual job growth. However, Mr. Perron indicates that the 
employment trends reflected by the statistics, such as the strong growth in the 
Service Sector and the decline in Manufacturing employment within the City, 
continue to reflect expected changes in San Francisco's job market. 

A major factor influencing business location decisions is the availability of 
skilled labor. A 1990 Standard and Poor's report indicated that the San Francisco 
area's unemployment rate of 3.4% in 1989 was among the 20 lowest in the nation, 
and that the higher growth rate of jobs relative to growth of the labor force had 
significantly tightened the labor market between 1986-89. 

Figures from EDD indicate that unemployment in San Francisco in 1990 
was 4.0%, somewhat lower than the 5.6% rate in California and the national 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

average of 5.5%. Even during the current recession, the City's unemployment rate 
has been relatively low, with the unadjusted rate for October 1991 being 5.3% in 
San Francisco compared to 7.8% in Los Angeles, 7.3% Statewide, and 6.4% 
nationally. 

Mr. Perron states that San Francisco is characterized by a mature economy 
which lacks significant opportunities for sustained employment growth, in 
contrast to outlying communities in the Bay Area. Space limitations, 
transportation concerns, and high labor costs constrain some businesses from 
locating in San Francisco rather than in outlying areas, where these constraints 
are less severe. Although he indicates that opportunities for physical expansion, 
are limited, with the notable exceptions of Mission Bay and possibly Hunters 
Point, Mr. Perron states that it is not necessarily true that an economy which 
does not continually add jobs must therefore be stagnating or dying. 

A 1990 guide to business conditions published by Standard and Poor's 
indicates that the average annual job growth of 1.4% in the San Francisco area 
between 1986-89 was the fifth worst rate of growth among 23 metropolitan areas in 
the West. This was attributed to high building costs, a lack of affordable building 
space, and out-migration of business due to low office vacancy rates and 
associated high rents. 

According to the Mayor's Office of Business and Economic Development, job 
growth in San Francisco is constrained by business density and growth 
restrictions, although the City's "compound annual rate of employment growth 
since 1988 at 1.5% has been higher than for any other four year period since 1972." 

Business Opportunities. Issues of particular relevance to the San Francisco 
economy, according to Mr. Perron, include the mix of businesses which are 
present in the City, the competitive advantages available in San Francisco to firms 
in specific industries, and the amenities which San Francisco can offer to attract 
and retain businesses which are best suited to San Francisco's specific economic 
conditions. Mr. Perron expects San Francisco to continue to be attractive to firms 
in the service, retail, and tourism industries, and as the site for corporate 
headquarters. He expects the City to continue to compare unfavorably as a site for 
the location of managerial, clerical, and information services located in "back 
office" facilities, since companies are expected to be unwilling to pay high office 
rents for employees having little contact with the public, especially in view of San 
Francisco's continuing problems of transportation and housing. 

Mr. Perron comments that the local San Francisco economy is particularly 
well suited to the Tourism, Finance, Retail, and Services industries, and that 
these strengths are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Tourism . According to a February, 1991 report of the San Francisco 
Chamber of Commerce, tourism continues to grow at an annual rate of 2-4% 
annually, accounting for 11.1% of San Francisco jobs. These visitors are 30% 
business travelers, 36% conventioneers or tour groups, and 34% tourists or others, 
and they pay approximately $140 million in taxes annually to the City, as reported 
by the Chamber of Commerce. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Finance. Insurance and Real Estate has been a strong segment of the local 
San Francisco economy, representing 13.9% of San Francisco County jobs in 1988. 
A 1990 report of business conditions published by Standard & Poor's indicated that 
the segment's 11% share of Bay Area employment compared with an average 
share of 7% for Western metropolitan areas, and that banking's share alone, at 
5%, was "twice as concentrated" in the San Francisco area as in the average 
urban area of the nation. The report also noted that the 2% annual decline in 
banking employment since 1986 stemmed from "white collar consolidations now 
endemic to that industry." The effects of these trends on San Francisco's banking 
industry will hurt the local economy, but should also be interpreted in the context 
of such larger industry shifts. 

Retail Sales . Figures from the California Board of Equalization and U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce indicate that taxable retail sales in San Francisco in 1990 
were 5.6% higher than in 1989, as compared with an overall growth rate of only 
3.4% for California. The 5.0% growth in sales within the San Francisco Primary 
Metropolitan Statistical Area (San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo Counties) 
was higher than for the Bay Area taken as a whole, with retail sales growth of 
2.8%. Sales grew by 3.8% in 1990 for the nation. 

Board of Equalization figures also show that taxable retail sales in the first 
half of 1991 decreased by 1.3% over the same period in 1990. This compared 
favorably with a decline of 3.6% for California and 6.3% for Los Angeles. 

International Trade. Mr. Perron attributes a significant part of the growth 
of the Services sector to a continuing expansion of commerce with Pacific Rim 
countries, which generates economic activity in import/export industries, in legal 
services such as patents and trademarks, in other areas concerned with 
international trade, and in the many enterprises which provide direct and 
indirect services to firms. The region's economy is developing an increasingly 
important concentration in international trade, according to a 1991 report by the 
Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). The value of 
exports and imports passing through the San Francisco custom district more 
than doubled between 1983 and 1989. Many jobs in the finance industry and in 
legal and professional services are probably related to this growing segment of the 
economy. The two major groups of Trade (wholesale and retail) and Services 
could account for 70% of job gains in the Bay Area through 2000, with the strength 
of international trade being a prime determinant of the continued vitality of the 
regional economy. 

Business Taxes. San Francisco's business tax is assessed either on a firm's 
total payroll or total gross receipts, with the base chosen which produces the 
higher tax assessment. A firm is exempt from the business tax if its liability is 
less than $2,500, but all businesses must pay a business registration fee of $150. 
The registration fee is waived for firms grossing less than $15,000. 

According to Mr. John Tanaka in the Tax Collector's Office, in Fiscal Year 
1990-91, only 6,500 of the 56,000 firms doing business in San Francisco, or 
approximately 11.6%, paid business tax to the City. 

BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 



Of the firms which do pay business tax, most pay the tax on payroll rather 
than gross receipts. In FY 1990-91, according to Mr. Tanaka, the City received 
$126 million in payroll taxes and $21 million in gross receipts taxes, for a total of 
$147 million in business tax revenue. (Of the total business tax receipts, this 
equates to 85.7% payroll tax and 14.3% gross receipts tax.) 

The gross receipts tax rate differs for different types of businesses in the 
City. The Tax Collector classifies businesses among 15 categories, and assigns tax 
rates of either .123% ($1.23 per $1,000 of gross receipts), .15%, or .30% according to 
the business classifications. According to Mr. Tanaka, these differential rates 
have been adjusted slightly over the years, but are essentially patterned after the 
Los Angeles business tax ordinance which was used as a model for San 
Francisco's business tax when it was adopted in 1968. Many businesses in the 
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector are exempt from local business taxes 
under California law. 

Mr. Perron notes that prospective changes in the City's tax base and tax 
revenues resulting from business location decisions should be considered in light 
of the City's revenue needs and the size of its population. Differential tax rates for 
different industries result in certain firms contributing more than others to the 
City's tax revenues. According to Mr. Kent Sims of the Mayor' Office, the Mayor's 
Office is reviewing the City's current business registration fee, payroll and gross 
receipts taxes as well as parking taxes concerning the equity, ease of collection 
and administration and revenue needs of the City. 

Mr. Perron also states that problems of job creation and retention are linked 
to issues of transportation and housing, which affect costs of doing business as 
well as the quality of life. 

Air Quality Control. Stricter air quality regulations promulgated by the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District will soon require large employers to 
design specific measures to improve employee mobility and reduce reliance on 
single occupancy vehicles. Mr. Perron states that such air quality and 
transportation standards will have a significant impact on business location 
decisions, especially for manufacturing firms. Whereas the ratio of jobs to total 
population is approximately 1:2 in average urban areas, according to Mr. Perron, 
the City's employment level of approximately 565,000 jobs and total population of 
approximately 730,000 gives a ratio of 1:1.3. Based on 1990 figures attributed to the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Mr. Perron indicates that 
approximately 320,000 San Francisco residents work in the City, suggesting that 
as many as 245,000 workers may be commuting daily to work in San Francisco 
from other jurisdictions. Mr. Perron reports that the number of commuters into 
the City is more conservatively approximated between 150,000 and 200,000. 

Mr. Bob Arnold, an economist with the Center for the Continuing Study of 
the California Economy in Palo Alto, analyzes business and economic conditions 
in San Francisco and the Bay Area. He states that the local San Francisco 
economy witnessed a transitionary period in the 1980s, when high costs of doing 
business in the City, largely attributable to the costs of leasing commercial space, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

resulted in relocations away from the City, especially for firms in manufacturing 
and wholesale trade. 

Commercial Costs and Vacancy Rates. Business expansions into San 
Francisco are influenced in part by the availability and cost of office space. 
Figures issued in late 1991 by MOBED, citing the Society of Office and Industrial 
Realtors, indicate that San Francisco's office vacancy rate of 15.1% is the second 
lowest of the top ten real estate markets in the nation, after New York City 
(13.7%). The Chamber of Commerce recently announced renewed efforts to attract 
and retain businesses in San Francisco. According to Mr. Jim Lazarus of the 
Chamber of Commerce, commercial rents in San Francisco have become more 
competitive with neighboring communities, but the local business tax is still a 
significant burden which creates a disincentive to firm location in the City. 

Mr. Arnold believes that business costs have now equalized, and that the 
growth and expansion of service industries in the last decade have led to improved 
conditions which will enhance job growth and business retention in the 1990s. A 
major challenge for San Francisco in this economic climate, according to Mr. 
Arnold, is to provide the skilled workers needed to accommodate the growth of the 
service sector. 

Per capita income/Housing costs . Per capita income in the Bay Area is 
among the highest in the nation. The $28,000 per capita income level in the San- 
Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area (including Marin and San Mateo 
Counties) in 1989 was the second highest in the nation; San Francisco's level was 

$28,742. 

Because of the constraints imposed by limited physical space and building 
restrictions, Mr. Perron states that the location of businesses in San Francisco 
involves a trade-off between commercial and residential uses of available space, 
and that this tradeoff raises issues of housing affordability and the economic 
stratification of San Francisco's population which are political in nature. He 
notes that high housing costs generate high property and transfer tax revenues 
for the City, but may lead to out-migration from the City by members of some 
income groups. 

The CCSCE report indicates that per capita income in the Bay Area grew at 
an average annual rate of 2.1% between 1979-89, faster than the State average of 
1.1% and faster than any other region in the State. Total personal income rose at 
an average annual rate of 3.6% in the same period, compared to the national 
average of 2.7%. According to the report, however, "high wage rates only partly 
offset high housing prices," with the Bay Area having the 14th least affordable 
housing market in the nation, second in California only to Anaheim. 

Mr. Arnold comments that the City's economic health can be measured not 
only by statistics concerning job growth, but by changes in average real income, 
which has risen in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Higher real income, 
according to Mr. Arnold, reflects higher levels of productivity and the presence of 
an increasingly skilled work force, which is characteristic of a higher 
concentration of service industries. Mr. Arnold also cautions strongly against 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

interpreting the effects of a national recession as indicative of structural problems 
in the local and regional economy, and therefore reiterates his opinion that San 
Francisco and the Bay Area demonstrate considerable economic strength. 

Future Growth of Bay Area Jobs and Population . According to CCSCE's 
1991 report, the Bay Area will add more jobs than any California region, except 
the Los Angeles Basin through the year 2000, although the rate of growth will be 
the slowest of all regions of the State. Rates of job growth for all regions of 
California will still exceed the national average. 

CCSCE reports that job growth in the Bay Area will entail a substantial 
increase in population. CCSCE estimates that the region could increase by as 
many as 877,000 new residents by the year 2000, slightly more than the estimated 
844,000 new residents added between 1980 and 1990. 

According to U.S. Census figures, San Francisco's population grew by 6.6% 
in the 1980s, slower than the Bay Area growth rate of 16.5% for the period. The 
number of Asian residents increased by 43%, while the number of Hispanic 
residents grew by 20.8%. These figures suggest that the nation's strong increase 
in immigration from abroad during the decade may have accounted for a 
significant portion of San Francisco's population growth. 

Increased Decentralization of Housing and Jobs . Growth during the 1979-89 
period was accommodated through greater decentralization of housing and 
employment centers. The very high rate of job growth in outlying areas of the 
region between 1979-90 is shown in Exhibit 1. Changes in percentage employment 
shares of Bay Area counties between 1972-1989 is shown in Exhibit 2, which 
reflects the decline in San Francisco's share of Bay Area employment from 25.1% 
in 1972 to 19.4% in 1989. 

Mr. Michael McGill is the Director of the San Francisco Economic Forum, 
which he describes as a public/private partnership to address issues of regional 
economic vitality, whose Directors are appointed by the Association of Bay Area 
Governments and the Bay Area Council, and whose work is financed by 
corporations throughout the region. 

Mr. McGill observes that during the 1970's an average of some 11,000 jobs 
annually relocated to San Francisco, as compared to fewer than 1,000 in a 
comparable period between 1980-87. Mr. McGill attributed this change in the rate 
of job creation to "massive" job relocations to areas outside the City by large 
corporations during the 1980s, including as many as 30,000 to 40,000 backoffice 
jobs. Many of these jobs were in the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 
industry, according to Mr. McGill. 

Although losses of this magnitude in the relocation of San Francisco jobs 
to other jurisdictions have now abated, Mr. McGill expects that similar 
relocations would occur if the City's office vacancy rate in San Francisco falls 
below 9 percent, from its current level of approximately 12 percent. Because of the 
imposition of commercial growth restrictions under Proposition M, Mr. McGill 
expects that the office vacancy rate will fall below this level in the late 1990s. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Moreover, because new office space takes as many as 7 years to construct, Mr. 
McGill expects a serious situation to result as the vacancy rate declines, jobs are 
relocated to other areas, and new commercial space remains unavailable for an 
extended time. 

The relocation of back office jobs has also contributed to the attrition of 
middle class workers in the City, according to Mr. McGill. He states that this has 
led to increased stratification between highly skilled workers in service industry 
occupations, including professional occupations, and low-skilled or unskilled 
workers in the growing sectors of retail trade, restaurants, and tourism. 

The Mission Bay project will provide some additional facilities for back 
office operations, but for the most part Mr. McGill expects San Francisco to 
remain uncompetitive with respect to these jobs. He attributes this to planning 
regulations which require that new commercial projects include a range of public 
amenities, such as housing and transportation fees, day care, and open space, 
and that such new commercial projects succeed in design competitions with other 
proposed projects. BackOffice space is not well-suited to such requirements, 
according to Mr. McGill. 

Housing Construction . Mr. McGill also cites the inadequate size of the 
City's housing stock and a limited supply of affordable housing as a cause of the 
City's loss of jobs to outlying communities. 

CCSCE reports that residential housing construction in the Bay Area will 
continue to be strong, but that it will be concentrated outside of San Francisco in 
areas where land is abundant and less costly. The "residential focus," therefore, 
"will continue moving to the fringes." 

Continued lack of residential space and affordability in San Francisco will 
result in continuing high prices for labor and possible shortages of skilled 
workers, continuing problems of inadequate transportation, and continued high 
personal expenditures for housing services. Mr. McGill recommends that the 
City amend zoning regulations to permit more extensive housing development in 
areas such as South of Market. 

Mr. McGill comments that the challenge to San Francisco of job creation 
and business retention is "the challenge of growth generally," which is to target 
and recruit specific industries best suited for the economic climate in San 
Francisco and to initiate efforts to keep them in San Francisco. He cites as an 
example the substantial contributions to the San Francisco economy of the 
University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), and the need for a public role in 
assisting UCSF to locate the facilities needed to operate its research facilities and 
to add up to 1 million additional square feet of space in the near future. 

Committee on JOBS. The Committee on JOBS is a group of San Francisco 
business leaders working to enhance the long-term economic vitality of the City, to 
ensure that the City remains an attractive and competitive place to live and work. 
On February 19, 1992, Mr. Sam Ginn, the Chairman of the Committee on JOBS 
and the Chairman and CEO of Pacific Telesis Group presented the Committee on 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

JOBS report to the Finance Committee. This report addresses the need for a 
partnership between local government and business and community 
organizations and outlines governmental goals for 1992. These goals include cost 
effective service delivery, taxation, transportation, permit process, City image and 
business climate, economic development and the urban environment. Mr. Sims 
reports that the Mayor's Office is currently reviewing and working with the 
Committee on JOBS. 

Small Business Advisory Commission. The Small Business Advisory 
Commission, comprised of 11 members has recently reviewed and held hearings 
regarding changes to the Commission. On March 25, 1992 the Small Business 
Advisory Commission recommended to amend the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, Article XIII, to eliminate the Small Business Advisory Commission and 
instead to establish an overall Business Advisory Commission. Such changes 
would require approval of the Board of Supervisors and the Small Business 
Advisory Commission is urging the Mayor to seek adoption of such legislation by 
the Board of Supervisors. The proposed new Commission would incorporate both 
large and small, downtown and neighborhood business interests and would 
increase the number of commissioners from 11 to 15 members. Such an expanded 
commission could be used to reconcile various business and economic views and 
provide recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. 

Economic Development Plans. Mr. Sims reports that the Mayor's Office is 
currently developing a Citywide economic development plan and strategy, 
including identifying the role of the City and specific departments (e.g., the Port 
and Airport), regulatory and legal requirements, infrastructure needs, targeted 
industries, housing and transportation needs and many of the issues outlined 
above. Work on this plan and strategy, which have recently begun are expected to 
be completed in approximately one year. According to Mr. Sims, it is anticipated 
that this Citywide plan and strategy can provide a general framework or 
guidelines for future public policy decisions regarding economic development in 
the City. 

In addition, work has begun on individual neighborhood sector economic 
development plans, which will attempt to coordinate various City department 
programs (e.g., Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Block Grant 
Program, Enterprise Zone, etc.) in addressing economic strategies for these 
neighborhoods. The first plan, which is nearing completion, will focus on the 
Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhood. Economic development plans for the 
Tenderloin and the Mission are anticipated to be conducted next. 

Employment Impacts. The Budget Analyst has analyzed the employment 
impacts on the San Francisco Bay Area of an additional $1 billion of grant or bond 
funds to the City. The following two charts reflect the number of direct jobs and 
the total number of direct and indirect jobs that could be expected to result: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 





Number of 




Direct Jobs 


Direct Employment 


Per $1 Billion 


Construction - Non-residential 


9,367 


Construction - Highways and 




Public Utilities 


10,633 


Maintenance and Repair 


6.800 


Total 


26,800 



Number of Direct 

and Indirect Jobs 

Per $1 Billion 

11,709 

12,653 

8.500 

32,862 

As reflected above, assuming that a total of an additional $1 billion of grant or 
bond funds were equally distributed among the above three construction and 
maintenance sectors of the economy, it is estimated that 26,800 additional direct 
jobs would be created. Overall, a total of 32,862 direct and indirect jobs would be 
created if an additional $1 billion of grant or bond funds were approved by the City. 

These estimates are based on the Association of Bay Area Governments 
(ABAG) Input-Output Model which reflects the impact on the San Francisco Bay 
Area, which includes the surrounding counties. The impact on San Francisco 
would be less, although the precise impact on San Francisco cannot be 
determined. It is also assumed that the jobs created within each of these 
industries are new jobs and not relocations from other jobs and that all purchases 
by businesses would come from enterprises within the Bay Area. 

General Obligation Bonds. The attached information, prepared by the 
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, pertains to the amount of General 
Obligation bond measures that have been approved by the San Francisco voters, 
the amount of bonds issued by the City to date, the remaining amount not yet 
issued and the amount of the four proposed bond measures for the June, 1992 
ballot. As reflected in the attachment, since 1986, the voters of San Francisco have 
approved $753.3 million of General Obligation bonds. To date, a total of 
$390,597,849 of these $753.3 million of approved bonds have not yet been issued. In 
addition, another $148,220,000 for four General Obligation bonds are on the June 
2, 1992 ballot. If all four of these bond measures are approved in June, 1992, it 
would result in a total of $538.8 million of outstanding bonds to be issued. 

Based on $538.8 million of outstanding bonds, using the same ABAG Input- 
Output Model as above, the Budget Analyst projects this would result in an 
additional 14,440 direct jobs and an overall total of 17,706 direct and indirect jobs 
for the San Francisco Bay Area. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 




$ s 



B 



'-r. 

s 

fe 



pROM C . ft . i 



•J IO N 
Ch 0\ ~ 



8 8 c 




>J K> tO K> 

Os ON >— £• 




3RN FR- 
© 



H 

o 



5 






. ; : sco 

?> w -j w 

2 <r 2 2 

O S. o o 

*b )S oo oo 

© w vo go 



O T3 TJ 
O c: c 

q 2 2 



u O O 

~ C? <? 

11 M M 

8 3 3 

— *o x> 

E3 3 

fS < < 

w> o> rt> 

3 3 



^ u> w w u> •&. 

£ 2 2 2 2 2 

E o o o o o 
?<<<<< 

°2 00 00 00 00 00 
00 -J ^J -J ~J On 



t 



s s 




U> p— 



— U>v/>Ovp^-tOKJS)^. 

On N « JO 6 OO » _-J 00 OS 

~U\ "jk* "-J "l/i 

8 8 8 8 




Ox jO jxj yi o oo & <t j— d\ 

8 8 





I I 
a. «= 



« > 

8 3 

e o 

s> 3 






J? 

3 

I; > 

tfo o 

c I 



o 

cr 

*0 



o 

ro 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 12 - File 128-92-1 

Note: This item was transferred from the Special City Services Committee 
meeting on April 28, 1992, because it was determined to have fiscal impact. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend Part II, Chapter 5 (Health Code) 
of the San Francisco Municipal Code by repealing Article 21 and adding new 
Article 21 to (a) conform hazardous materials regulations to Federal and State 
laws regulating underground storage tanks and the handling of hazardous 
materials by business establishments, (b) impose additional stricter local 
requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 
25299.2 and 25500, and (c) incorporate by reference Article 11.9 of Chapter 6.5, 
Chapter 6.7, Chapter 6.75, and Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of California Health 
and Safety Code, Section 1910.1200 of Title 29, Appendix A of Part 355 of Title 40, 
Section 370.2 of Title 40, and Section 72.3 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations; and Section 12000 of Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations. 

2. According to Ms. Sue Cone of the Department of Public Health (DPH), 
existing City regulations require the DPH to issue a permit to any business that 
stores hazardous materials. In order to be permitted, a business must submit an 
application, including an inventory of all hazardous materials stored by the 
business, and be inspected by the DPH's Hazardous Materials Division. Yearly 
follow-up inspections are also required. Within the Hazardous Materials Division, 
inventories of hazardous materials must be classified and entered into a database. 
Ms. Cone advises that classification of hazardous materials is complicated 
because four to five pages of technical data must be reviewed and evaluated for 
each inventoried material in order to determine its hazard classification. 

3. Ms. Cone advises that an estimated 10,000 San Francisco businesses 
store hazardous materials. Because the permitting process is difficult and time 
consuming, and because the DPH Hazardous Materials Division does not have 
sufficient resources to carry out the permit process for these 10,000 businesses, 
only 500 businesses are permitted. Ms. Cone reports that several hundred 
unprocessed applications have been submitted. Those businesses whose 
applications are pending, and those that have never submitted applications, Ms. 
Cone advises, are storing hazardous materials without any oversight. 

4. The proposed ordinance would reorganize the hazardous materials 
oversight process so that all businesses storing hazardous materials would be 
required to register rather than be permitted. The proposed biennial registration 
process would be simpler than the current permit process. To register, a business 
would pay a fee, complete a registration form listing the type of hazardous 
chemicals it stores, and develop a facility emergency response and training plan. 
Businesses would be required to demarcate any acutely hazardous materials 
which they store, as established in the State Health and Safety Code. Those 
businesses that do not store acutely hazardous materials would be inspected every 
three years rather than yearly. The more rigorous permit process would be 
restricted to those estimated 200 to 500 businesses storing acutely hazardous 
materials. According to Mr. Tsutsui, the proposed registration process would 
require fewer Hazardous Materials Division resources per business, and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

therefore allow the Division to process more businesses, because (1) inspections 
for businesses that do not store hazardous materials could be done every three 
years rather than every year; and (2) hazard classification of business inventories 
would be required for considerably fewer businesses. 

5. Ms. Cone reports that neither State nor Federal law requires that 
businesses storing hazardous materials be permitted and inspected yearly. 
Rather, State law requires that, at a minimum, such businesses submit specific 
information and be inspected every three years, Ms. Cone advises. These 
requirements are similar to the proposed registration process, so that the 
proposed registration process would be in conformance with Federal and State 
laws. 

6. The proposed ordinance would continue to incorporate an ordinance 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in May of 1991 (File Number 118-91-2), which 
requires that some substances be disclosed which are not required to be disclosed 
under State or Federal law, and that hazardous materials reduction plans be 
developed. 

7. An estimated 10,000 businesses store hazardous materials and would 
therefore need to register. The Hazardous Materials Division would anticipate 
registering 1,500 new businesses each year for the first six years of the program, 
and 1,000 new businesses the seventh year. Beginning the third year, businesses 
that are already registered would renew their registration every two years. Thus, 
after seven years, the 10,000 businesses storing hazardous materials would all be 
registered. The anticipated registration pattern from 1992-93 through 1998-99, or 
seven years, is as follows: 















Cumulative 




New 






First 


Yearly 


Total of New 


Fiscal Year 


Regri strati on s 


Reregistrat 


ions 


Registered 


Total 


Registrations 


1992-93 


1,500 







not applicable 


1,500 


1,500 


1993-94 


1,500 







not applicable 


1,500 


3,000 


1994-95 


1,500 


1,500 




1991-92 


3,000 


4,500 


1995-96 


1,500 


1,500 




1992-93 


3,000 


6,000 


1996-97 


1,500 


3,000 


1992-93; 1994-95 


4,500 


7,500 


1997-98 


1,500 


3,000 


1993-94; 1995-96 


4,500 


9,000 


1998-99 


1,000 


4,500 


1992-93; 1994-95; 


5,500 


10,000 










1996-97 







BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

88 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

8. The processing fee for registration would be $340 biennially, plus a 
biennial "quantity fee" of $34 to $1,530, depending on the volume of hazardous 
materials a business stores, Mr. Tsutsui advises. The Division anticipates that 
most businesses would pay biennial quantity fees between $34 and $510. Thus, 
most businesses would pay from $374 to $850 every two years. Mr. Tsutsui advises 
that the fee schedule was determined based on the number of staff hours and 
other resources required for the registration process. A comparison with 19 
California counties, including nine Bay Area counties, indicates that the 
proposed fees are among the lowest fees charged by most of the 19 counties. Mr. 
Tsutsui reports that despite the lower fees, the DPH's Hazardous Materials 
Division would provide services that many of the 19 California counties do not 
provide, such as site inspections and consultations regarding compliance with 
various other laws and regulations. 

9. Underground tanks store hazardous materials, particularly petrol, in 
buried metal or fiberglass tanks. Such tanks can corrode over time and leak 
hazardous materials into the groundwater. However, State and Federal law does 
not require that oversight of underground tanks be included as part of hazardous 
material disclosure requirements. The proposed ordinance would incorporate 
underground tanks as part of the registration process. Rather than paying a fee 
based on the quantity of materials stored, as other businesses would, a biennial 
registration fee of $170 per site would be charged for underground tanks in 
addition to the $340 processing fee. In addition, underground tanks would be 
required to obtain an operating permit each year, at a cost of $85 per tank. If a 
business removed or modified its underground storage tank, it would require a 
modification permit, at a cost of $363. 

The original title of the proposed ordinance read "... regulating 
underground storage tanks and the handling of hazardous materials by business 
establishments." Ms. Cone reports that underground storage tanks are a subset of 
hazardous materials. Therefore, the title of the proposed ordinance was amended 
by the City Services Committee at its April 28, 1992 Special City Services 
Committee meeting to read "... regulating the handling of hazardous materials, 
including underground storage tanks, by business establishments." 

10. The Hazardous Materials Division currently anticipates that revenues 
generated by the proposed program would entirely support the Hazardous 
Materials Division, and may generate revenues beyond current costs in future 
years. If revenues exceeded costs, Division staff would decide whether fees should 
be reduced or services increased, Mr. Tsutsui advises. The Hazardous Materials 
Division anticipates revenue from businesses equaling $1.2 million from the 
proposed registration program for Fiscal Year 1992-93, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Activity 

Registration Processing Fee* 

Registration Quantity Fee* 

Registration Fee for Underground Tanks* 



Average 
Amount 

$340 
306 
170 



Anticipated 
Number 

1,500 

1,225 

275 



Total 

$510,000 

374,850 

46,750 



Underground Tank Operating Permit 


85 


(per tank) 


1,200 


102,000 


Underground Tank Modification Permit 


363 




156 


56,628 


Inspections 


85 


(per hour) 


400 


34,000 


Permits 


550 




100 


55,000 


Permit Renewals 


600 




50 


30.000 



TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 



$1,209,228 



*Per business biennial fees. However, at least 1,500 businesses are anticipated to register each 
year, so that total revenues are anticipated to be at least $1,209,228 annually. 

In addition, the Hazardous Materials Division may generate revenues from 
consulting fees with private environmental firms, through penalty assessments 
for non-compliance, through work orders from other City departments, and 
through income from UCSF if UCSF requests a dedicated Hazardous Materials 
Division staff member to oversee the registration and permitting of its facilities. 

The $1.2 million anticipated revenues would cover all of the operating 
expenses for the Hazardous Materials Division for 1992-93. The current budget for 
the Hazardous Materials Division is approximately $1,104 million. The proposed 
program would generate approximately the same revenues in Fiscal Year 1993- 
94. During the third year of the program, when the total number of businesses 
registering exceeds the 1,500 anticipated for 1992-93 and 1993-94, revenues 
generated by the program could exceed the operating expenses of the Hazardous 
Materials Division. As noted above, if program revenues exceed the costs for 
operating the Hazardous Materials Division, Mr. Tsutsui advises that either 
registration fees would be reduced or services would be increased. 

11. Mr. Tsutsui advises that the proposed registration program would be 
evaluated by the Hazardous Materials Division on a quarterly basis. The 
evaluation would review the registration program's progress based on work plans 
and revenue projections. Specifically, the Division would review the number of 
permits issued, the number of completed registrations, and the revenue from 
enforcement, permitting, and registration. According to Ms. Cone, the Division is 
currently computerizing its permit process using the City-wide standard Oracle 
database management program. The proposed registration program would use 
the same computer system, Ms. Cone advises. Ms. Cone further advises that the 
Hazardous Materials Division anticipates that the quarterly evaluation would be 
fairly simple with the use of the Oracle database. If revenues at the time of these 
quarterly evaluations do not meet projections, the Hazardous Materials Division 
staff, in conjunction with the Director of the Bureau of Toxics, contingent upon 
approval by DPH administration, would either increase recruitment of businesses 
that need to register, or divert resources, for example, from inspections, into more 
significant revenue generating activities as necessary. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

12. In summary, the reasons that the Hazardous Materials Division is 
proposing to replace the existing process where every business storing hazardous 
materials would need to be permitted, with a program where every business 
storing hazardous materials would need to register and only those storing acutely 
hazardous materials would need to be permitted, are as follows: (1) the Hazardous 
Materials Division lacks sufficient staff resources to inspect and classify 
hazardous materials to issue permits to the estimated 10,000 businesses in San 
Francisco storing hazardous materials; (2) the proposed registration program 
would provide equity in the levels of business compliance, and the volume of 
information would enable the Hazardous Materials Division to enhance current 
ranking systems and effectively prioritize inspection and permitting operations 
based on relative risk; (3) registration would be more consistent with State and 
Federal law, since it would provide some oversight for all businesses storing 
hazardous materials, rather than close oversight for 500 such businesses and 
little or no oversight for the remaining businesses; (4) the proposed registration 
program would bring in sufficient revenues to cover the entire budget for the 
Hazardous Materials Division on an on-going basis. In addition, the proposed 
registration program would allow the Hazardous Materials Division to support 
public disclosure and emergency response, because it would provide inventories 
and classifications of all hazardous materials stored by businesses in San 
Francisco. The proposed registration program would be monitored quarterly, 
based on work plans and revenue projections, to evaluate its progress. 

13. On April 28, 1992, the City Services Committee recommended approval 
of the proposed ordinance. As noted above, this ordinance was transferred to the 
Finance Committee as it was determined to have a fiscal impact on the City. 

Recommendation 

Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

91 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

Item 13 - File 212-92-1 

Note: This item was continued at the Finance Committee meeting of April 22, 
1992. 

This proposed item is a hearing to consider the financial expenditures for 
the removal and relocation of the Pioneer Monument for the new Main Library. 

In order to accommodate the construction of the new Main Library, the 
Pioneer Monument, located at the corner of Grove Street and Hyde Street, will be 
relocated. The relocation site, as approved by the Arts Commission, is Fulton 
Street, between Larkin Street and Hyde Street. 

According to Mr. Russ Abel of the DPW's Bureau of Architecture, the 
estimated costs for relocation are approximately $750,000. Mr. Abel reports that 
these relocation costs would not be financed through bond funds, but rather 
through donations from the Library Foundation of San Francisco. However, no 
formal arrangement regarding the financing of the relocation costs has yet been 
made with the Library Foundation of San Francisco. Mr. Abel indicates that the 
construction management firm for the new Main Library, O'Brien Krietzberg, 
had initially estimated the relocation costs at approximately $175,000. However, 
Mr. Abel explains that this cost estimate was a preliminary estimate which did 
not account for several associated relocation costs, such as landscaping and 
support structures at the new site. 

Mr. Abel reports that the relocation of the Pioneer Monument was included 
as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which has been available for 
public evaluation, and three sets of public hearings have been held by the Arts 
Commission. This EIR was certified by the Planning Commission on February 
27, 1992, the findings were approved by the Arts Commission on April 6, 1992 and 
by the Library Commission on April 17, 1992. The Board of Supervisors have not 
yet approved the findings of the EIR. As noted in the EIR, the Pioneer Monument 
is not a contributing element to the landmark district (Civic Center). Therefore, 
its relocation would not have a significant negative impact on the environment. 

Another alternative included in the EIR was retaining the Monument in its 
existing location. This alternative was estimated at $4 million, versus $750,000 for 
the relocation costs. Mr. Abel also reports that this $4 million estimate includes 
additional architect fees to redesign the new Main Library, and also increased 
project costs due to delays resulting from redesigning the new Main Library to 
accommodate the Pioneer Monument in its existing location. According to Mr. 
Kenneth Dowlin of the Public Library, these redesign costs would be incurred 
because the Public Library in its existing design would have to be expanded 
around the statue in order to accommodate the same amount of square feet. 

Mr. Dowlin explains that when preliminary designs and cost estimates 
were completed for the new Main Library in conjunction with the bond issuance 
in 1988, the proposed Puhlic Library had originally included a basement, and 
retaining the Pioneer Monument in its existing location. However, Mr. Dowlin 
reports that the estimated cost of the Public Library, including a basement and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

92 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 6, 1992 

retained the Public Library in its existing location was approximately $120 
million, and the Public Library was requested by the Board of Supervisors to 
reduce the cost of the new Main Library. Therefore, the estimated cost was later 
reduced to approximately $104.5 million for the new Main Library in its current 
design. 

The groundbreaking for the new Main Library occurred on April 23, 1992. 
According to Mr. Dowlin of the Public Library, the relocation of the Pioneer 
Library would be completed as part of the construction phase of the new Main 
Library, which is scheduled to begin in approximately December, 1992. 



*7, 

Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Adelle Foley 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF ST IPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



5 



% 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




MAY 7, 1992 



NOTICE OF CANCELLED MEETING 



City Hall 

San Francisco 94102 

554-5184 






MAY \ ) \992 









FINANCE COMMITTEE 



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regularly scheduled 
meeting of the Finance Committee for Wednesday, May 13, 
1992, at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled. 

The next regular meeting of the Finance Committee will 
be held on Wednesday, May 20, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 
228, City Hall. 





TOHN L. 
Clerk of ''the Board 



POSTED: MAY 7, 1992 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
ROOM 235, CITY HALL 
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 



IMPORTANT 
HEARING NOTICE 



D 0313 



SF Public Library (2) 
Document Section 



^ 5 \\l 

C A L E N D A R -'Atf/oM 

A MEETING OF 
3. FINANCE COMMITTEE 

*^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

///// 
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ - ITEMS 3, 5-8, 10-13 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

a. File 25-92-14 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's approval that security guard services can be practically performed at 
450 McAllister Street by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees, commencing July 1, 1992. (Department of 
Public Works) 

b. File 132-92-5 . [Grant - Foundation Funds] Resolution authorizing the San Francisco 
Arts Commission to permit Intersection for the Arts to continue to act as non-profit 
fiscal agent for the San Francisco Arts Commission Gallery and to continue 
sponsorship of the gallery's "Exploration: City Site Program"; and in that capacity 
to apply for, retroactively accept and expend a $7,500 LEF Foundation Grant for 
City Site Programming: indirect costs of 10 percent fiscal agent fee in the amount 
of $750.00 to be paid from the Arts Commission's Public Art Fund. (Arts 
Commission) 

c. File 146-92-4.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, Tuberculosis Control 
Division, to accept and expend a grant of $508,860, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $47,827 based on twenty percent of salaries, from the Department of 
Health and Human Services for the Tuberculosis Control Project. (Department of 
Public Health) 

d. File 146-92-19.1 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Community Public Health Services, STD Control Division, to accept 
and expend a grant of $140,591, which includes indirect costs in the amount of 
$12,781, based on ten percent of the total award from the Centers for Disease 
Control for development of a computer-based quality assurance system. 
(Department of Public Health) 



e. File 146-92-30 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Homeless Programs, to accept and expend as sub-grantee an 
augmentation to a grant of $299,433 from the San Francisco Community Clinic 
Consortium of federal public health services funds for primary health care and 
substance abuse services including a required match of 33 percent of the total 
project or $149,717; waiving indirect costs, and providing for ratification of action 
previously taken. (Department of Public Health) 

f. File 146-92-31 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Central Administration, MIA Program, to apply for, accept and 
expend the Fiscal Year 1991-92 allocation of up to $2,500,000, which includes 
indirect costs of 20 percent of personnel costs, from the State Department of Health 
Services for Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) funds under the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). (Mayor) 

g. File 146-92-10.1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Community Public Health Services, to accept and expend a grant of 
$1,053,333, from the State Office of Health Services for breast and cervical cancer 
screening and diagnostic services; waiving indirect costs. (Department of Public 
Health) 

h. File 146-92-32 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Laguna Honda Hospital, to apply for, accept and expend a grant of 
$35,600, from the State of California, Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) 
for handicapped transportation services to the residents of San Francisco; waiving 
indirect costs. (Department of Public Health) 

i. File 147-92-3 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the San Francisco 
Public Library to apply for funds not to exceed $85,000 available through the U.S. 
Department of Education from the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) for 
the purchase of foreign language materials for the Fiscal Year 1992-93; waiving 
indirect costs. (Public Library) 

j. File 192-92-2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Executive Director 
of the Department of Parking and Traffic and the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept and expend $450,000 of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 
Funds for bicycle/pedestrian projects foregoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 
(Department of Parking and Traffic) 

k. File 101-91-56.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Juvenile 
Probation Department, in the amount of $333,392, to cover local share costs not 
eligible for State funds, for various capital improvement projects; companion 
measure to Files 101-91-56 and 141-92-1. (Juvenile Probation Department) 

1. File 94-91-4.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Public 

Utilities Commission, in the amount of $65,000, for Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, Maintenance Building, 
Paint Booth Fans Modification. (Public Utilities Commission) 

m. File 101-91-12.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, in the amount of $250,000, for environmental 
consultant services (EIP Associates, contractor), for the Bayside Treatment 
Evaluation Project. (Department of Public Works) 



File 146-91-10.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, Community Public Health Services/Family Health 
Bureau, in the amount of $64,000, for renewal contractual services with Caheed Day 
Care Center, to provide educational and support services to pregnant and postpartum 
African-American women and infants, for period of July 1, 1992 through June 30, 
1993. (Department of Public Health) 

ACTION: Items b, c, d, f, i, j, k and 1 removed from Consent Calendar. Remainder 
of Consent Calendar recommended. 

Item a, File 25-92-14. Recommended. 

Item b, File 132-92-5. Tabled. 

Item c, File 146-92-4.1. Amended on lines 4 and 12, following "expend", 
by adding "retroactively". Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Department of Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology 
and Disease Control, Tuberculosis Control Division, to accept and 
expend, retroactively, a grant of $508,860, which includes indirect costs 
in the amount of $47,827 based on twenty percent of salaries, from the 
Department of Health and Human Services for the Tuberculosis Control 
Project." 

Item d, File 146-92-19.1. Amended on lines 6 and 12, by replacing "total 
award" with "project's total direct costs". Recommended as amended. 
New title: "Authorizing the Department of Public Health, Community 
Public Health Services, STD Control Division, to accept and expend a 
grant of $140,591, which includes indirect costs in the amount of $12,781, 
based on ten percent of the project's total direct costs, from the Centers 
for Disease Control for development of a computer-based quality 
assurance system." 

Item e, File 146-92-30. Recommended. 

Item f, File 146-92-31. Amended on lines 3 and 19, following "expend", 
by adding "retroactively". Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Department of Public Health, Central Administration, 
MIA Program, to apply for, accept and expend, retroactively, the Fiscal 
Year 1991-92 allocation of up to $2,500,000, which includes indirect 
costs of 20 percent of personnel costs, from the State Department of 
Health Services for Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) funds 
under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)." 

Item g, File 146-92-10.1. Recommended. 

Item h, File 146-92-32. Recommended. 

Item i, File 147-92-3. Amended on page 1, line 2, following "apply", by 
adding "retroactively". Further amended on page 1, line 23, by replacing 
"will apply" with "is authorized to apply, retroactively". Recommended 
as amended. New title: "Authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to 
apply, retroactively, for funds not to exceed $85,000 available through 
the U.S. Department of Education from the Library Services and 
Construction Act (LSCA) for the purchase of foreign language materials 
for the Fiscal Year 1992-93; waiving indirect costs." 



Item j, File 192-92-2. Hearing held. Continued to May 27, 1992, meeting. 

Item k, File 101-91-56.1. Motion prepared in and reported out of 
Committee entitled: "Releasing reserve in the amount of $333,392, for 
Juvenile Probation Department, to cover local share costs not eligible for 
state funds, for various capital improvement projects." Recommended. 
(A letter will be sent requesting that Juvenile Probation Department and 
DPW submit reports which include a detailed budget, and the MBE, WBE 
status of any contractors used for capital improvement projects at Youth 
Guidance Center.) 

Item 1, File 94-91-4.3. Continued to May 27, 1992, meeting. 

Item m, File 101-91-12.1. Release of $250,000 recommended. Filed. 

Item n, File 146-91-103. Release of $64,000 recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 100-92-3 . Hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated revenue 
shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 5/6/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to May 27, 1992, meeting. 

3. File 172-92-9 . [Permit Agreement to Use City Property] Ordinance authorizing the 
Cirque Du Soleil ("Circus") to use City-owned property (southerly of King Street, 
between Fourth and Fifth Streets [Lot 3, Block 3796]); and to adopt findings pursuant 
to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

4. File 128-92-1 . [Hazardous Materials] Ordinance amending Health Code by repealing 
Article 21 and adding new Article 21 to conform hazardous materials regulations to 
Federal and State laws regulating the handling of hazardous materials, including 
underground storage tanks, by business establishments, impose additional stricter 
local requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 
25299.2 and 25500, and incorporate by reference Article 11.9 of Chapter 6.5, 
Chapter 6.7, Chapter 6.75, and Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of California Health and 
Safety Code; Section 1910.1200 of Title 29, Appendix A of Part 355 of Title 40, 
Section 370.2 of Title 40 and Section 72.3 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations; and Section 12000 of Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations. 
(Supervisor Alioto) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 4/28/92 - Fiscal Impact) 
(Cont'd from 5/6/92) 

ACTION: Amended on page 21, line 3, by adding "(c) The Director of Health shall 
report back to the Board of Supervisors by August 1, 1995, regarding the 
status and effectiveness of the program implemented according to this 
Article." Recommended as amended. 



5. File 166-92-2 . [Charges for Tax Sale List] Resolution authorizing the Tax Collector 
to charge a twenty dollar ($20.00) fee to defray the cost of mailing copies of the list 
containing all tax defaulted real estate parcels which is included in the impending 
sale of tax defaulted real estate. (Tax Collector) 

ACTION: Hearing Tabled. 

File 97-92-32 . Ordinance prepared in and reported out of Committee 
entitled: "Amending Administrative Code by adding Section 8.34, 
authorizing the Tax Collector to charge a fee of twenty dollars ($20.00) to 
defray the cost of mailing copies of the list containing all tax defaulted 
real estate parcels which are included in an impending sale of tax 
defaulted real estate." Recommended. 

6. File 166-92-3 . [Tax Sale] Resolution authorizing Tax Collector to sell at public 
auction certain parcels of tax-defaulted real property. (Tax Collector) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

7. File 97-92-28 . [Employee Benefits] Ordinance amending Sections 16.904, 16.905, 
and 16.93 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, voluntary employee benefits, 
cafeteria plan benefits, and organizations for which deductions can be made to 
reflect changes made in implementing an employer-paid dental program. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

8. File 97-92-29 . [Employee Health Coverage] Ordinance amending Section 16.157 of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code, approving Health Service System Plans and 
Rates of Contribution as adopted by the Health Service Board. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to May 27, 1992, meeting. 

9. File 171-92-2 . Hearing to consider San Francisco's contribution to the Fiscal Year 
1992-93 Peninsula Commute Service Operating Budget. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Motion prepared in and reported out of Committee 

entitled: "Requesting the Mayor to renegotiate an amendment to the 
Joint Powers Agreement between the City and County of San Francisco, 
the San Mateo County Transit District and the Santa Clara County Transit 
District pertaining to future planning, oversight, and operation of the 
Peninsula Commute Service, to adjust San Francisco's responsibility for its 
portion of administrative costs of the Joint Powers Board to reflect more 
accurately the proportion of the ridership that originates in San 
Francisco." Recommended to Board for consideration on June 22, 1992. 



10. File 142-92-1 . [Water Rates - Finding] Resolution making a finding that no tax 
subsidy will be required by the San Francisco Water Department by reason of 
approval of a proposed schedule of rates to be charged by the San Francisco Water 
Department for water supplied to its suburban resale customers; companion measure 
to File 142-91-1.1. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

11. File 142-92-1.1 . [Water Rates] Resolution disapproving revised schedule of rates to 
be charged by the San Francisco Water Department for water service and water 
supplied to its suburban resale customers; companion measure to File 142-92-1. 
(Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: To Board with recommendation "do not pass". 

12. File 142-92-2 . [Water Rates - Finding] Resolution making a finding that no tax 
subsidy will be required by the San Francisco Water Department by reason of 
approval of a proposed schedule of rates to be charged by the San Francisco Water 
Department for retail water service in San Francisco and suburban areas; companion 
measure to File 142-92-2.1. (Public Utilities Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

13. File 142-92-2.1 . [Water Rates] Resolution disapproving revised schedule of rates to 
be charged by the San Francisco Water Department for retail water service in San 
Francisco and suburban areas; companion measure to File 142-92-1. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

ACTION: To Board with recommendation "do not pass". 

SPECIAL ORDER - 4:00 P.M. 

14. File 100-91-7. Hearing to consider the status of the City's economic vitality and 
business climate. (Supervisors Gonzalez, Migden, Shelley) 

(Cont'd from 5/6/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 



CITY AND COUNTY 



Tubiic Library, 'Documents (De.pt. 
«.mMo^rry%ptfi 




OF SA 



^ 



OARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

May 18, 1992 



TO: "Finance Committee 

FROM: r Budget Analyst ^zcd>*l^<^ " ! 

SUBJECT: May 20, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item la - File 25-92-14 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW), 
Bureau of Building Inspection (BBI) 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that security guard services can be practically performed at 
450 McAllister Street by a private contractor for a lower cost 
than similar services performed by the City and County of 
San Francisco, commencing July 1, 1992. 



Security guard services at 450 McAllister Street 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
security guard services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result 
in estimated savings as follows: 



City Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 

Employee Benefits 
Total 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 

$18,691 

5.815 

$24,506 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 

$22,081 

6.518 

$28,599 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Comments: 



Contracted Service Cost 
Estimated Savings 



12.725 
$11,781 



12.725 
$15,874 



1. Ms. Paulette Hooey of the BBI advises that security guard 
services were first certified as required by Charter Section 
8.300-1 in 1989 and have been continuously provided by an 
outside contractor since then. 

2. The current contract, which is a one year extension of 
the prior year's contract and expires December 31, 1992, is 
with Cal-State Patrol Services, a City- certified Minority 
Business Enterprise (MBE). It has been the practice of Cal- 
State Patrol Services to base its contracts on a calendar 
year, necessitating that BBI request an extension so as to be 
consistent with the City's fiscal year calendar. The 
Contracted Service Cost used for the purpose of this 
analysis is based on Cal-State Patrol Services' estimated 
cost of providing services for fiscal year 1992-93. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Charter 8.300-1 {Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department DPW-Buildlns Inspection 

Contract Services For Building Security Services 
Time Perio d July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Cal State Patrol Service, Inc. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? 

None 

3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 
Not Applicable 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 4 hours per day. (5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Monday through Friday 
except holidays for City offices are closed.) 

One Tuesday each month and 1st and 3rd Wednesdays which time are extended 
to 11:00 P.M. 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 
Fiscal year 1991-1992 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

Fiscal Year 1989-1990 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 

Action Plan'' 

Current contractor is qualified MBE, with certification No. 21-103-00201 

by the Human Rights Commission. This could be a part of the BBI - MBE/WBE 

Affirmative .Action >Lan. 




'-&&C A 




Department Representativ 



Paulette M. Hooey > Manager Q f Administrative 

(Type Name, Title) 

(415) 558-6239 

Telephone 

cxlquespj 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item lb - File 132-92-5 



Department: 

Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description- 



Budget: 



Arts Commission 

Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Arts Commission 
to permit Intersection for the Arts to continue to act as non- 
profit fiscal agent for the San Francisco Arts Commission 
Gallery and to continue sponsorship of the Gallery's 
Exploration, City Site Program; and in that capacity to apply 
for, retroactively, accept and expend a continuation private 
grant for City site programming; including indirect costs of 
10% or $750, for a fiscal agent fee to be paid to Intersection for 
the Arts from the Arts Commission's Public Arts Fund. 

$7,500 

July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

LEF Foundation (Lydia Ebert Foundation) 

Exploration: City Site 

The proposed grant funds would be used for a "City Site" 
project which would enable local artists to present large-scale 
site-generated artistic installations in an undeveloped, highly 
visible lot, adjacent to the Arts Commission Gallery, located 
at 155 Grove Street. The Arts Commission Gallery is a 
municipal exhibition space under the auspices of the San 
Francisco Arts Commission. The Intersection for the Arts 
serves as the non-profit fiscal sponsor for the Arts 
Commission Gallery, which is used to support the programs 
and activities of the Arts Commission Gallery through 
private donations and Gallery sales. Therefore, the 
Intersection for the Arts would administer the proposed 
grant award on behalf of the Arts Commission Gallery. 

Three outside judges have been selected by the Arts 
Commission, to review letters of intent from applicants, and 
these judges have selected four proposals for further 
development. It is anticipated that out of the four proposals 
selected for further development, a total of three projects 
would receive funding. 

Artists' Honoraria 

Provided for three projects (or $2,250 each) $6,750 

Indirect Costs 750 

Total $7,500 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Required Match; None. 

Indirect Costs: $750 or ten percent of the total grant award of $7,500. The 

LEF Foundation does not reimburse for indirect costs. 
Therefore, a ten percent fiscal agent fee would be paid to 
Intersection for the Arts, paid from the Public Arts Fund. 

Comments: 1. The deadline to apply for the proposed grant award was 

March 1, 1992. Therefore, the proposed resolution would 
authorize the Arts Commission to apply for the proposed 
grant retroactively. 

2. According to Ms. Anne Meissner, Director of the Arts 
Commission Gallery, the LEF Foundation has indicated that 
the Arts Commission Gallery would not receive any grant 
funding for the "Exploration: City Site" project. Ms. 
Meissner indicates that the Arts Commission is currently 
identifying other grant sources for the project, but in the 
event that no other grant sources are identified, the project 
would be funded through the Public Arts Fund. The Public 
Arts Fund was established to receive revenues from 
programs and events which are under the supervision and 
control of the Arts Commission, such as revenues from the 
POPS Summer Concert Series. The Arts Commission 
reports that the current unallocated balance of the Public 
Arts Fund is approximately $45,000. According to Ms. Maya 
Rath of the Arts Commission, it is anticipated that additional 
revenues would be received into the Public Arts Fund from 
the 1992 POPS Summer Concert Series. As outlined in 
Section 10.117-1 of the Administrative Code, the Arts 
Commission is required to report annually to the Board of 
Supervisors a summary showing the total revenue and a 
description of expenditures made from the Public Arts Fund. 

3. Since the Arts Commission will not be receiving the 
proposed grant funds from the LEF Foundation, the proposed 
resolution should be filed. 

4. The Arts Commission has completed a Disability Access 
Checklist which is in the file. 

5. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request," as 
completed by the Arts Commission. 

Recommendation: File the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



U 1 / 2 1 • 9 2 1)0:40 'g 4 1 5 554 5163 Bd. /Supervisors Page 1 of 2 @002 

File Number 

Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department: San Francisco Arts Commission Gallery 

Contact Person: Anne Meissner, Director Telephone: 554-9682 

Project Title: "Exploration: dry Sire." . 

Grant Source: LEF Foundation 



Proposed (New /( Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 



Established in 1986, City Site provides rare opportunities for Bay Area artists 
to present large-scale site-generated installations in an undeveloped, highly 
visible lot adjacent to the Gallery, located in Civic Center in the heart of 
the City's Performing Arts Complex. City Site's 1992 competition will be like 
those of the past with one exception. The Arts Commission wishes to expand 
the competitive base for applicants in" 1992. Project budgets will be allowed 
to exceed the $6,000.00 award provided by City Site. This provision will allow 
applicants to apply other outside grant monies or in-kind contributions to 
their project; it will increase funding required for interdisciplinary 
collaborative works; and it will challenge applicants to formulate ideas for 
the site without budget constrictions. As in the past, three outside jurors 
will review letters of intent from applicants; selecting up to five proposals 
for further development. It is hoped that three projects will merit awards. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $7,500.00 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $7,500.00 



Required Matching Funds: . None 



Number of - Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $7 , 500.00 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? yes -- call for entr ies to 

artists/limited competition 



-Grant Application Information Form 
Page 2 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Term of Grant: July 1, 1992 through June 30. 1993 

Date Department Notified of Available funds: April 1, 1992 
Application Due Date: March 1. 1992 , 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RfP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation) : 

Letter of intent sufficient for application (see attached). 




approval 
Joanne\Chok Winship, Director of Cultural Affairs 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item lc -File 146-92-4.1 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Projects: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, 
Communicable Disease Control, 
Tuberculosis Control Division 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease Control, 
Communicable Disease Control, Tuberculosis Control 
Division, to accept and expend a grant of $508,860, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $47,827, based on 20 
percent of salaries, from the Department of Health and 
Human Services for the Tuberculosis Control Project. 

$508,860 

April 1, 1992 through January 31, 1993 

U. S. Department of Health & Human Services, 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Tuberculosis (TB) Prevention and Control/Elimination 
Project and HrV-Related TB Prevention Project 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-92-4) which authorized the Department of Public 
Health to apply retroactively for a continuation Federal grant 
of $1,262,902, including indirect costs of $126,286 based on 20 
percent of salaries, for these two TB Prevention and Control 
Projects. 

In the interim, the CDC has notified the DPH that it is 
awarding the DPH a total grant amount of $508,860 for the 
continuation of its two projects. In addition to the proposed 
grant, the DPH has requested a supplemental grant of 
$533,869 from the CDC to fund the items in the budgets of 
these two projects which were deferred by CDC. The CDC 
has awarded the DPH a supplemental grant of $188,558, and 
the DPH is the process of requesting authorization from the 
Board of Supervisors to apply for, accept and expend this 
supplemental grant. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Diagnostic treatment, surveillance, screening, case finding, 
registry and medical consultation activities have been 
supported by these two projects for the past 10 years. Both 
projects serve all communities in San Francisco. Mr. Tony 
Paz, the Tuberculosis Control Division Program Manager at 
the DPH, advises that it is the intention of the CDC to 
continue supporting the DPH's present operations which it 
has funded in the past, with the only new activities being the 
addition of screening at jails for the TB Prevention and 
Control/Elimination Project. At this time, the DPH will be 
unable to expand its outreach activities in high-risk sectors of 
the City because the CDC has not earmarked any funds for 
the City to do so. 

The two proposed programs seek to meet the following 
objectives: 

(1) The assurance of adequate treatment of active TB. cases by 
daily observed therapy; (2) the identification and treatment of 
infection in substance abuse clinics where HrV infection 
increases risk; and (3) assistance in the reduction and 
ultimate elimination of tuberculosis through intensified 
outreach. 

Budget: A. TB Prevention and Control/Elimination Project 

Personnel Positions 

1 Class 2320 Registered Nurse Deferred 

1 Class 2920 Medical Social Worker Deferred 

1 Class 2822 Health Educator Deferred 

1 Class 2808 Sr. Disease Control 

Investigator $37,483 

3 Class 2806 Disease Control Investigators Deferred 

2 Class 2586 Health Workers Deferred 

3 Class 2585 Health Workers 71,045 

1 Class 1446 Secretary II Deferred 

1 Class 1424 Clerk Typist 25,198 

1 Class 2808 Sr. Disease Control 

Investigator 37.500* 

(* Salary and Fringe Benefits) 

Total Salaries $171,226 

Other Personnel Items 

Bilingual Pay $2,230 

Premium Pay 875 

3,105 

Fringe Benefits (27% of Personnel) 36,106 

(excluding the $37,500 salary/fringe benefits 

for one Class 2808 Sr. Disease Control Investigator) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Travel 



Meetings, Seminars and Training 


$5,000 


Local and Out-of-City Mileage 


2,600 


Bus Tokens for Patients 


3,200 




10,800 


Supplies 


Deferred 


Office Supplies 


$3,600 


Food and Incentives for Patients 


5,700 


Medical and Pharmaceutical 


7,000 


Laboratory (Bactec and Gene Probe) 


28,000 


Comprehensive Health Ed. Materials 


42,500 




86,800 


Equipment 


Deferred 


Vehicle (2) w/sales tax 


$26,792 - 


Telephones 


3,320 


Photocopier 


3,336 


Facsimile 


924 


Personal Computer (2) 


13,000 


Lap-Top PC 


4,500 


Computer/Software RFLP Molecular Data 


38,000 


Audio/Visual Equipment 


2.600 




92,472 


Contractual 


Deferred 


Real Property Rental 


$12,058 


American Lung Assoc, of S.F. 


102.465 


(subcontract) 


114,523 


Operating Expenses 


Deferred 


Vehicle Maintenance 


$2,500 


Advertising 


2.500 




5,000 



TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 



$221,237 



Indirect Charges (20% of Personnel) 

(excluding $37,500 fringe/benefits allocated 

for 1 Class 2808 Sr. Disease Control Investigator) 



27.366 



TOTAL (TB Prevention and Control/Elimination) $248.603 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 



B. HIV Related TB Prevention Project 

Personnel Positions 

1 Class 2808 S. Disease Control Investigator 
1 Class 2587 Health Worker III 
1 Class 2587 Health Worker III 
.5 Class 1446 Secretary II 
1 Class 1424 Clerk Typist 
Total Salaries 

Other Personnel Items 
Premium Pay 

Fringe Benefits (27% of Salaries) 

Travel 

Meetings, Seminars and Training 

Local and out-of-City Mileage 



$37,483 
24,137 
Deferred 
15,242 
25.198 

$102,060 



$245 
27,556 



Bus Tokens for Patients & Passes 




5,833 


Client Incentives 
Food 




500 


Materials and Supplies 
Office Supplies 
Medical Supplies 
Pharmaceuticals (INH and B6) 


$2,312 
2,311 
2,311 


6,934 


Equipment 
Phones (2) 
Answering Machine 


$ 750 

400 

1,150 


Deferred 


Contractual 







4 Project Site Half-Time Nurses ($24,167 x 4) 96.668 

TOTAL DIRECT COST $239,796 

Indirect Charges (20% of Salaries) 20.461 

TOTAL (HIV Related TB Prevention Project) $260.257 

None 

$47,827, based on 20% of salaries from the two projects 
(excluding the $37,500 allocated for the salary and fringe 
benefits of 1 Class 2808 Sr. Disease Control Investigator). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



U 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Comments: 1. Mr. Paz of the DPH reports that the CDC has earmarked 

the line items which it has chosen to fund while deferring 
funding for other line items (those marked "Deferred" in the 
two budgets above). The deferred items are expected to be 
funded, at least in part, by the supplemental grant of $188,558 
from the CDC. 

2. Mr. Paz indicates that the $37,500 allocated for the salary 
and fringe benefits of one Class 2808 Senior Disease Control 
Investigator (DCI) was excluded from his calculations for 
indirect costs (20 percent times the salary total of $171,226 less 
$37,500 plus bilingual and premium pay of $3,105, or $27,366) 
and for fringe benefits (27 percent times the salary total of 
$171,226 less $37,500, or $36,106) in the budget for the TB 
Prevention and Control/Elimination Project. The rationale 
for this was that in the original proposal, the DPH had 
requested a Public Health Advisor from the CDC on a 
contractual basis for $54,000. Since the CDC only funded 
$37,500 for this contractual position, the DPH and the CDC 
agreed to allow the DPH to allocate the $37,500 toward paying 
both the salary and fringe benefits of one Class 2808 Senior 
DCI. Attachment I is a copy of the letter from the DPH to the 
CDC, confirming the personnel modification, per the 
approval of Mr. Greg Andrews, DPH's CDC consultant. 

3. Attachment II is the Summary of Grant Request, as 
prepared by the DPH. 

4. A Disability Access Checklist, as prepared by the DPH, is 
included in the file. 



Recommendation: 



5. As noted above, the grant period began April 1, 1992. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution needs to be amended to 
provide for retroactivity. 

Amend the proposed resolution to retroactively authorize the 
DPH to accept and expend a grant of $508,860. Approve the 
proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 




$6 County of San Francisco 



Attachment I 

Dept. of Public Health 
TB Control Division 



March 20, 1992 

Mr. Edwin L. Dixon Attention: Eddie Wilder 

Grants Management Officer 

Procurement and Grants Office 

Centers for Disease Control, Mail stop E14 

225 E. Paces Ferry Road, Room 300 

Atlanta, GA 30305 

Dear Mr. Wilder, 

As per our phone conversation on negotiations on our grant 
application, federal ID #; U52/CCU 9004 54-10 , I am enclosing 
confirmation of amounts allocated to our TB Control Program. 
Attached is a revised Application For Federal Assistance Form 424 
and a revised 424A. 

Please note that the item under TB Prevention and Control, 
Direct Asssitance of a Public Health Advisor ( PHA ) was modified to 
a Class 2808, Senior Disease' Control Investigator. These changes 
were made after consultation and approval by Greg Andrews, our CDC 
consultant. 

Please see attachments of revised Budget Summaries for the 
grant period April 1, 1992 thru 1-31-93 for a total of 10 months. 
The letter you requested regards local agreements on 20% charges 
for indirect costs will be forwarded to your office in the next few 
days along with these originals. 

Thank you for all your assistance and considerations. Tf you 
have any questions, please call our offices at (415) 206-8524 and 
ask for me or our Program Manager, Tony Paz. 



Sincerely yours, 



MD. 



Gisela Schecter, M.D..MPH. 

Director 

TB Control, San Francisco 



cc Greg Andrew 
Harry Stern 
Tony Paz 

Carlos Bal.ladares 
Dr. Fran Taylor 
File 



(415) 821-8524 



Ward 94 - S.F. General Hospital 



San Francisco 94110 



\ ) 



Accacnment ll 



iiarJJj!_iI^inmi:LiiiM]._^.'' , .'!.'!!ii 1 :; >• ■ •! Li! i-.nl li*-.nu^l 



kcv. -l/lO/irti 



CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL 
r«ii:a.-i ■ ■ - . " TiCTORl A WEST8ERG/CRA NTS 

'55 i- . Paces ferry rtk m.k. urnoo 
' C1S '^TL"~s^roTno?7 - AT'raNTA^; ~ga~ — uno 5 



COMMUNITY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES 
ItEOC/TK CONTROL 



A i.iciint Kcqucsicd 5 

term: From "IjLLl^L 
llt^lll. Commission 



508, 8bO 



To 



I/3L/93 
Hoard ..I 



HI •. I . i. • i. 
r.t < il-ii 

1,. i I 

I cl»|'l 

/-. ,.,.ii...u. . 

I.\.tlli..-,iii.ii I.; i-tt u il 

ijjci \- i ^ ..i i: r iiiam c < "«>in mill 
l-i. II lluaril 



.•■■ FRANCES TAYLOR. N. I! 

_'(lt):-Q\524 ._Ciili»JiLA .SCHECTEJi,, Ml» 

hc^iii... yu±iv2 

V 18/92 



(accept & expend) 

ft Jjr.r« 12rsr.rliL!i».n; Request io (ww^y.feO\-«"^fipiMU)dx^.f;jji(^ a (nw.I (counnuaiwmj (nuomiuony (HcwnsiH&utxhc&fa) 

,.-.!..„.-,.;-- -w pram in the amount of S 508 , 860 U im\ lite pciiod nf ,V ' 792 lo J/^ 1 / 9 ^ 

in pim-idr. assis tance in th e , ^l.u/U.m and control _of .i"!?.^'^'-^!.^^^^. 

jj___Suxiini2ri - ; <° — •■— "-r -^ ..-.j.^-.^ ; ,«Ui.,,^."-'.~"^ ..j>... .-:..j 

l)j ; -,.-. nosrif treatment, surveillance, screenin g, ^.^ Find i ny, r ^ ist £Y and^ med ica I 
.■m entation have been supported by this project. for 10 years. The project serves " 
;i I I communities in San Francisco. 



J1 L Qi'lr.in-ir^/Ol.i rrtivrt; 

I, To assur e adequate treatment ol cases l>y d.i i I y observed I lie- 1 .i|»v ■___£-_ 
lieal inl'e.-l icm in Substance Abuse Clinics where II I V i nl'ccL i on increast 
in the reduction and ultimate el iin inatlon. of tuberculosis by instituting intensified outreach. 



i i dun I i I v and 
i j sk . "5 . Assi st 



]Vi_rrrrct< »r Eaaimiaii 






Current activities ,. daily observed therapy and screening, and preventive therapy for inrec- 

"ETon in substance abuse sites would Have t~o~he cfi scon t i "nii ed". Fr opose d a ct 1 vl t ies r "tnrte n s i - 



Tied outreach and screening, i nformation and education activities, and improved patient car 
would not be realized. 

V . F i n a n c i n 1 T n formBtion: 



Cnl. 



Kcilirics/Space — 

oil.c ./Travel / }' I 5 . 004 

huiiitci Costs JL_A2-»TZ3_. 



12 months 10 mouths 



Two Vt::i Ago p t i; Ycxr/Ons. 

Grant Amount 4 32.390 498,444 

Personnel '69. 1 73 
Equipment 6.417 

ijc-.truct Svc. ')3 . I "7 3 
■ at. & Snpp. fr .350 



32 5 


,143 






104 


,000 


7 


,7') 9 



il9_. 997 



508, 860 
340,299 
___0 

6,933 

.JLTLijD.I 
17, 82 7 



' li»U( 


t 


-HO, 


,4 In 


117, 


,15b 





.-.It 


:Jj7_ 


-_ 


86(i_ 


1 4 , 


,4 48 


- •' 


, 1 7ii 



J!!!!.ai-S«!...Uv 



ILL .J-: 
1-7 r ."si: 
I'.'i' >•.*;<: 



8.0 


8 . 


0. r i 


1). '. 


'-'-" 


2.U 



Suui(tts) of n<.i,- : raiiC luinlln;: for salaric* ..f CS 

None a ic |> 1 uv i .led . 



B»l pam fiimlco employees be relaiut-il jftei ;hj. ;: . 
. . Yes, jiy [1 I ... -i-iiit- 11 1 in ad Valorem posil 1. 111. 



,..;, 1 11, 



1 iiis. "Ijiii: 



.'.-•>:i !::•;! •.• ;•• ' :■ - p. ■■:•. l Open ;,;,,: •' ••■••• - ..... . ...,.,..,..., 

**C.«iiuraclual lu. 1. 1.-, will !••■ n.nl. ...d.-,.d I.. CSAS uhicli will I hen 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item Id -File 146-92-19.1 



Department 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 

Community Public Health Services, Sexually Transmitted 

Disease (STD) Control Division 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Community Public Health Services, STD Control 
Division, to accept and expend a grant of $140,591, which 
includes indirect costs in the amount of $12,781, based on 10 
percent of the total award, from the Centers for Disease 
Control for development of a computer-based quality 
assurance system. 

$140,591 

June 1, 1992 to May 31, 1993 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Development of a Compute r-Based Quality Assurance System 
for STD Clinic Medical Records 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-92-19) which authorized the Department of Public 
Health to apply for a grant of $250,000, including indirect 
costs of $25,000 based on 10 percent of the total award for 
development of a computer-based quality assurance system. 

In the interim, the CDC has notified the DPH that it is 
awarding the DPH a total grant amount of $140,591 for 
development of this system. This one year grant is only 
available to existing STD Prevention and Training Centers 
(one of which is San Francisco's program) and will allow the 
STD Control Division to fully automate its STD database in a 
scannable format and evaluate the quality of medical care 
provided to STD Clinic clients in accordance with the new 
CDC 1991 Clinical Practice Guidelines. 

Since the DPH already has a mainframe computer system, 
the funds would be used to purchase additional computer 
hardware and contract for software development to increase 
the number of users able to access the system as well as 
develop a fully automated STD database. These modifications 
and enhancements will also allow for the development of a 
computerized quality assurance system which will ensure 
that the care given to STD Clinic patients through the 
Prevention and Training Center is of the highest quality and 
in accordance with CDC Guidelines. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Budget 



If the CDC finds the computer software acceptable, it may be 
modified for use on personal computers at other STD 
Prevention and Training Centers in the U. S. Changes in the 
software and hardware would not increase the maintenance 
costs for the Community Public Health Services' computer 
system. 

Travel to Atlanta or Other STD Prevention and Treatment 

Centers for One DPH/MIS Liaison to CDC 

Project staff travel for purpose of 

collaborating on computerized STD 

medical records 

$125/day actual expenses (based on the State average) 

$600 round trip airfare 

$50 miscellaneous expenses 

Estimated cost of three 4-day trips: $3,450 

($125 x 4 = $500 + $600 + $50 = $1,150 x 3 trips = $3,450) 



Equipment 

One pair of 16-line multiplexors 

Cabling 

28 VT-320 Terminals @ $400 

128 Mb memory for VAX 6410 

Total Equipment 

Contractual Services 
Site licensing (purchase of rights to use 
computer system) & staff training 
Conversion of existing database into 
new computer system 



$6,700 
10,000 
11,200 
70.000 



16,000 
9.000 



97,900 



25,000 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 



Other 

Dedicated phone line for one year 

Estimated installation cost 

Annual phone charges ($80 x 12 mos.) 

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 

Indirect Costs 

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET 

None 



500 



1AGQ. 
$127,810 

12.781 

$140,591 



$12,781, or 10 percent of the project's total direct costs (see 
Comment number 2). 



BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Comments: 1. Ms. Wendy Wolf of the DPH reports that if these funds are 

not received, the result would be a delay in the development of 
a fully automated STD database. Consequently, clinicians 
would have less time to see clients due to the time involved in 
manually recording their findings and the STD Control 
Division's ability to perform quality assurance would be 
reduced, thus potentially compromising the quality of 
medical care given to STD Clinic clients. 

2. The proposed resolution states that the indirect costs for 
this project total $12,781, or 10 percent of the total award from 
the CDC. However, as reflected in the above budget, the 
indirect costs of $12,781 are actually 10 percent of the total 
direct costs of the project. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to reflect that the indirect costs are 10 
percent of the total direct costs, not of the total grant award. 

3. Attachment I is the Summary of Grant Request, as 
prepared by the DPH. According to Ms. Wolf, travel costs 
totaling $3,450 were inadvertently excluded in the Summary 
of Grant Request, but are included in the budget. 

4. The $25,000 allocated for contractual services would be 
used to augment the existing personal services contract 
which the DPH has with Global Health Care Services, Inc. 
This contract is a sole source contract between Global and the 
DPH's Management Information System (MIS) Division for 
the period from July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993. Under the 
proposed grant, the STD Division's computer system will join 
other DPH divisions in becoming part of the DPH's computer 
system, the Health Center Management System, by mid- 1992. 
A competitive bidding process for these services was not used 
since the DPH's MIS Department had already completed the 
City's RFP process for the computerized system five years ago 
and now has an existing contract with Global Health Care 
Services, Inc. Mr. Phil Bentley of the DPH's MIS Division 
advises that Global Health Care Services, Inc. is neither a 
MBE nor a WBE. 

Mr. Bentley further advises that the contract between Global 
and the DPH is part of a five year master plan which has 
already secured EIPSC approval. 

The $25,000 will pay for Global Health Care Services to modify 
the Global Health Information System to accept data that is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

scanned off the STD Clinic's medical record, including the 
addition or modification of the database structure to match 
the Clinic's medical record. Mr. Bentley advises that Global 
Health Care Services usually charges between $90 and $100 
per hour for its services, but that as a practice, Global has 
agreed to complete specific projects for a fixed amount of 
funds. 

Ms. Wolf advises that the CDC grants policy statement allows 
for differences between the grant period (June 1, 1992 to May 
31, 1993) and the duration of the contract between the DPH 
and Global (July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993), provided that the 
time difference does not exceed one year in length. 

5. The DPH has completed a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution in both the body and title to 
reflect indirect costs of $12,781, based on 10 percent of the 
project's total direct costs. Approve the proposed resolution, 
as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



HL"?| !n ' "mmi"i"n 



At tachment: I 



^ c n- .,.-,> r „„ frn | (CDC) o. i , Community Public Health Services 

Crmior Centers for Disease Control iiui ; Division i . . 

Con'.act Person Linda Long Section STI1 Control . 

Address ?55 F.ast Paces Ferry Road Contact Person Wendy Wolf 



Atlanta. Georeia 30305 Telephone 864-8100 



Amount Requested S 140,591 Application Deadline 4/1/92 _ 

Term: From (S/l /Q? To 5/31/93 Notification Expected 5/15/92 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Doard 



T. Item Description; Request to XappfcXibtX (accept and expend) a (ncw))^M}tMKja^MsxXtoXX^lg>5X3fiSG{a}«^ 
(a^k .prro^. -~^> granl - m ^ c amoun, f s 140,591 frorn fo c pz ^ 6 of 6/1/92 l0 5/31/93 

to pmvirir. for a computer-based quality assurance system services. 

This one year grant is only available to existing Prevention and Training Centers and 
will allow us to fully automate our STD database in a scannable format and evaluat-e the 
quality of medical care provided to STD clinic clients in accordance with the new CDC 
1991 Clinical Practice Guidelines. 

JTT. Qutcomes/Qbiccti ves: 

-Create a scannable medical record format for use in the STD Clinic 

-Develop a computer-based quality assurance system to evaluate STD Clinic medical care 
-Improve the medical care given to STD Clinic clients 

TV, Effect* of Reduction or Termination of Tjjjss Fu"d^ 

If funds are not received, the deveopment of a fully automated STD database will be de- 
layed, clinicians will 'see less clients due to the time invovled in manually recording 
their findings and our ability to perform quality assurance will be reduced thus 

potentially compromising the medical care given to STD Clinic clients. 
V. Financial Triformetion: 

Col, j Cnl. B Col. C Col. D Reo. Match Approved bv 

Two Years Ago P«l Ycu/Orig. Proposed Ccingt 

Grant Amount 140, 59 L_ 

Personnel 

Equipment ' 97,900 

-Contract Svc. 25,000 

Mat. Si Supp. 

Facilities/Space , 



Other 1,460 

Indirect Costs 12,781 



122,900 



VT 


F>?:2 


Prnc-ccina 


[c. 


=.0 T— '"— * 

P. re 


[l0 ■ 


VTT 


t,„n.1 



Frr esc 
p/t esc 

Cod tractual 



Source(s) of non-g.-2nt funding for salaries of CSC employees ~orkicg part-time on this grant: 
The grant funds no personnel positions 

Will grant funded employees be retained 2fter this grant terminates? If so, How? 
Nnr appliraMe since the grant funds no personnel positions 

- V T TT - — C""tr?rt t i ? l c;. rvir< ,^. Open Bid o. PP BpIou Sole Source See Below <;.•«;«.»,.•=. 1 ^.-R^ r i<^fo:i J = ? ua.?or=) 
Contractual services will be performed through the City's existing computer 
contract with Global Health Care Services, Inc. since the STD Division will be part of the 
Global Medical Record Computer System by mid 1992. 

* Travel costs of $3,450 were omitted here. 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item le - File 146-92-30 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Homeless Programs 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Homeless Programs, to accept and expend as sub- 
grantee an augmentation to a grant of $299,433 from the San 
Francisco Community Clinic Consortium of federal public 
health services funds for primary health care and substance 
abuse services, including a required match of 33% or $149,717 
of the total project budget of $449,150; waiving indirect costs, 
and providing for ratification of action previously taken. 

$299,433 

May 1, 1992 to October 31, 1992 

San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium 

Health Care and Substance Abuse Services for the Homeless 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved legislation 
authorizing the DPH to accept and expend, as subgrantee, a 
renewal grant of $581,424 from the San Francisco 
Community Clinic Consortium and to authorize the 
expenditure of grant funds to finance Civil Service positions 
for the provision of these services (File 146-91-53). The grant 
period covered by this earlier legislation was May 1, 1991 
through April 30, 1992. 

The proposed augmentation of a grant of $299,433 would fund 
the City's share of a collaborative effort between the DPH, 
which is the sub-grantee, and the San Francisco Community 
Clinic Consortium (SFCCC), the prime grantee. DPH is the 
sub-grantee because SFCCC had a prior arrangement for 
similar services with the Federal government. Since 1988, 
the program has provided comprehensive primary health 
care, social services and substance abuse services to 
homeless persons in San Francisco through a network of 
eight community-based health clinics, including the City- 
operated Tom Waddell Clinic. 



Personnel FTEs 

2328 Nurse Practitioner 3.5 $100,659 

2922 Sr. Med. Social Worker 1.0 25,307 

2920 Med. Social Worker 2.0 37.867 

Subtotal $ 163,833 

Fringe Benefits @ 29% _ 47.512 

Total Personnel 6.5 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



$211,345 



20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Required Match: 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Contractual Services - Bawiew 






Hunters Point Foundation FTEs 




Team Coordinator 1.0 


$16,092 




Case Manager/Therapist 2.0 


27,518 




Psychiatrist .35 


14.829 




Subtotal 


$58,439 




Fringe Benefits @ 20% 


11.688 




Subtotal 


70,127 




Indirect Costs @ 8% of above 






Subtotal 


5,610 




Total Contractual Services 3.35 




$75,737 


Operating Costs 






Supplies 


$10,213 




Telephones 


1,365 




Pagers 


773 


- 


Total Operating Costs 




12.351 


TOTAL (Grant) 




$299,433 


Matching Funds (from General Fund) 




149.717 



TOTAL (Project Budget) 



$449,150 



A minimum of at least $149,717, or 33% of total project budget 
of $449,150 ($299,433 proposed grant plus $149,717 required 
match). 



12,000 health, mental health, substance abuse, case 
management and outreach encounters are to be supported by 
these funds. 

None. The San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium, 
acting as prime grantee for the grant, has prohibited indirect 
costs for all subgrantee programs. 

1. Mr. Bob Prentice of the DPH advises that the DPH did not 
have to reapply for the augmentation of $299,433, as this is 
merely an extension of the previous grant, which is timed to 
be released from May 1, 1992 through October 31, 1992, based 
on the availability of Federal funding (the Federal fiscal year 
runs from October 1 through September 30, so it appears that 
some unspent funds are now available before the Federal 
fiscal year 1992-93 begins). Mr. Prentice also reports that the 
DPH expects that DPH will request authorization to reapply 
for a continuation of the same grant from the Board of 
Supervisors, effective October 1, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



2. Mr. Fred Milligan of the DPH reports that although the 
SFCCC prohibits indirect costs on all subgrantees, the 
Consortium did not prohibit indirect costs for contractual 
services because the contract with Bayview Hunters Point 
Foundation was an existing contract, which had previously 
included indirect costs. Mr. Milligan advises that the 
Consortium did not wish to disrupt services by requiring the 
DPH to initiate a bidding process with a new contractor or by 
requiring the DPH to renegotiate the contract. 

3. Mr. Milligan confirms that under the contractual services 
portion of the project's budget, the indirect costs are based on 
8% of $70,127, which constitutes 8% of the salaries and fringe 
benefits of contract staff from the Bayview Hunters Point 
Foundation. 

4. The proposed augmentation to a grant would begin May 1, 
1992. The DPH advises that it has already begun to incur 
costs against this augmentation. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution contains a clause providing for ratification of 
action previously taken. 

5. Mr. Prentice reports that the Federal government 
determined the DPH's total project budget of $449,150 for the 
period May 1, 1992 through October 31, 1992, by taking its 
current annual budget and prorating its expenses for a six 
month period. In accordance with the Federal matching 
requirement of 33% of the total project costs, $149,717 was 
established as the minimum matching amount to be paid by 
the DPH. The DPH has exceeded that minimum, as reflected 
in the DPH's Schedule of Local Match Requirements on 
Grants, which is included in the file and reflects a total 
match of $150,668 from the General Fund by the DPH. 

6. Although the above listed budget includes FTE positions, 
the salaries have been prorated to reflect personnel costs for 
the six month period covered by the proposed augmentation of 
a grant. 

7. Attachment I is the Summary of Grant Request, as 
prepared by the DPH. 

8. Disability Access Checklists, as prepared by the DPH and 
other agencies offering primary health care and substance 
abuse services under this grant, are included in the file. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



K< 



Vj_2Zllb _ rr ' mrn ' c<: ' r ' rl ~ ^'i^TIZrv n f Hrp.pt R>m 



Attachment - 1 - 



Rcv. </]0/90| 



Cran'ior' SF Community Clin, . Consortium 

Comaci Tcrson John Gressman 

Address 1748 Market Street, Suite 205 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Amount Requested S 299,433 

Term: From 5/1/92 T o 10/31/92 



Division 

S CC 1 I O D 



?HS 



Homeless Programs 



Contact Tcrson Fred Milligan 

Telephone 554-2673 

Application Deadline 

Notification Expected 



Health Commission 



Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 
Full Doird 



T. Item Description; Request to (sppfyifar) (accept and expend) a (hew) (continuation) (aliacsnon) (augmenution to a) 
( G~ic .iw^- — *> g-^ - m ^ amount of S 299,433 from the period of 5/1/92 l0 10/31/92 

to provirir. health care and substance abuse services. 



Request to accept and ex pend funds as sub-grantee in collaboration with San 

Francisco Community Clinic Consortium as prime, grantee , a continuation augmentation 

to a grant of $299,433 for the provision of health servcies and substance abuse 

services to homeless individuals in San Francisco. 



TTT. Outcomc<:/0bir cttvt «■: 

12,000 health, -mental health, substance abusers, case management and outreach 
encounters. 

TV. EHg&S Si Reduction or Tfrr"inatie>ri of Ihggt ^u^c}*: 

Denial of health services to hom eless persons results in expensive emergency 
room and hospital inpatient utilization. 



i-inancial Tnformetion: 



Grant Amount 
Personnel 
Equipment 
'Contract Svc. 
M2t. & Supp. 
Facilities/Space 
Other 
Indirect Costs 

V T. P?!S Prnr.c 



Col. K _ 

Two YciTJ A JO 

193,808 
136,793 



49,021 
6,611 



1,383 



Pm Yitr/Orij. 
581,424 

410,378 

147,064 " 
19,832 

4,150 



Col. C 
Proposed 

299,433 
211,345 

75,737 
10,213 



2,138 



Cot D 

Ccinjc 



Reo. Match 

149,717 ' 
42,321 

95,847 
12,500 " 



Approved bv 



VTT. P-r 



: """'l 



F/T CSC 

prr esc 

Cod tr2c:ual 



Source(s) of Don-sraat funding for salaries of CSC employees working Dirt-tin; on this "rant: 



Will zrznl funded employees be retained after this 



;rant terminates? If so, How? 



IVTJL Cnntr ? rt r? 1 c;. rv ; r . c . 0p . n Bi£ 



Sole Source 



=;*«=?«=) 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item If - File 146-92-31 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount of 
Allocation- 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Central Administration, 

Medically Indigent Adult (MIA) Program 

Resolution authorizing the DPH to apply for, accept and 
expend the fiscal year 1991-92 allocation of up to $2,500,000, 
which includes indirect costs of 20 percent of personnel costs, 
from the State Department of Health Services for Legalized 
Indigent Medical Assistance (LIMA) funds under the 
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). 



Up to $2,500,000 



Term of Allocation: July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992 



Source of Funds: 

Indirect Costs: 

Project: 

Description: 



Federal funds known as State Legalization Impact 
Assistance Grant (SLIAG), provided through the State 
Department of Health Services' Legalized Indigent Medical 
Assistance (LIMA) Program. 

Approximately 20 percent of personnel costs 

Legalized Indigent Medical Assistance Allocation 

The proposed resolution would permit the DPH to apply for, 
accept and expend the fiscal year 1991-92 allocation of LIMA 
funds from the State Department of Health. Under the LIMA 
Standard Agreement for FY 1991-92, San Francisco would be 
reimbursed up to $2,500,000 for unreimbursed costs of 
providing medical care services incurred between July 1, 
1991 and June 30, 1992 to legalized aliens under the 
provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 
1986 (IRCA). The scope of health care services to indigent 
county residents is contained in Section 17000 of the Welfare 
and Institutions Code (W&IC). Fiscal year 1991-92 is the fifth 
year of this program. 

The State would allocate LIMA funds to reimburse the City 
for the provision of medical care services to eligible medically 
indigent legalized aliens based on quarterly cost reports to be 
submitted by DPH. Reimbursable costs include health care 
services which are not covered by restricted Medi-Cal, such 
as non-emergency services or non-pregnancy related 
services. In addition to quarterly cost reports, the City would 
provide a final cost report which had been certified by the 
Controller. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Comments: 1. Ms. Nini Leigh of the DPH reports that she received a 

letter from the State Department of Health Services, dated 
January 30, 1992, advising the DPH to continue to submit 
LIMA cost reports for reimbursement for the fiscal year 1991- 
92, despite the fact that the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 1992 
State Legalization Assistance Grants (SLIAG) allocation was 
not included in the FFY 1992 Federal budget authorization 
bill. However, the letter also advised that the California 
Congressional delegation has made a commitment to include 
the FFY 1992 allocation in the FFY 1993 budget authorization 
bill. For this reason, it will be necessary to amend the 
proposed resolution to permit the DPH to retroactively apply 
for, accept and expend up to $2,500,000. 

Ms. Leigh also notes that the State Department of Health has 
advised the DPH that it ought to apply for LIMA funds as 
soon as possible, due to a possible shortage of funds and that 
it now appears that there is a good possibility that SLIAG 
monies will be available for reimbursement of LIMA services 
in fiscal year 1992-93 as well as for fiscal year 1991-92. 

Mr. Mike Kamikawa. of the IRC A Central Administration 
Unit of the State Department of Health Services reports that 
at an April 29, 1992 meeting with Federal officials, the State 
was told that the IRCA Act has been amended to require the 
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to 
make a SLIAG allocation to the states by October 15, 1992. 
Mr. Kamikawa indicates that the State's SLIAG application 
is due to the Federal government on July 1, 1992, 
necessitating that the counties submit their LIMA cost 
reports to the State prior to that date. 

Ms. Irene Bueno from Sen. Alan Cranston's office advises 
that as of this writing, the SLIAG legislation is still going 
through the Federal appropriations process, and that both 
House and Senate bills pertaining to SLIAG have language 
deferring $1,122,922,000 in funds appropriated for SLIAG 
from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 1993. However, both the 
Senate and House conferees have agreed to provide sufficient 
funds for SLIAG in 1993 and to direct the Secretary of HHS to 
distribute these funds no later than October 15, 1992. 

Ms. Susan Ehrlich of the DPH reports that the State of 
California had anticipated that SLIAG monies would not be 
forthcoming to reimburse the counties for services rendered 
through the LIMA Program during fiscal year 1991-92. The 
State attempted to compensate for this loss by including 
enough revenues for counties through realignment to cover 
SLIAG revenues, as well as other State health revenues. 
Realignment shifted State General Fund revenues for 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



various health, mental health and social services programs, 
including the LIMA Program, to sales tax and vehicle 
license fees. Ms. Ehrlich further advises that if no LIMA 
expenditures are reimbursed by SLIAG for fiscal year 1991- 
92, there will be not be a shortfall of DPH revenues since the 
DPH did not anticipate receiving any SLIAG revenues this 
fiscal year. If SLIAG revenues were received for fiscal year 
1991-92, they would go to offset General Fund expenditures in 
the DPH. If insufficient funds are raised through State 
realignment revenues, the cost of providing such services 
would be borne by the General Fund. 

Ms. Leigh reports that for fiscal year 1991-92, the DPH 
budgeted $1.8 million for expected State realignment 
revenues from which the DPH could expect reimbursement 
for SLIAG services (which includes the LIMA Program). 
The most recent State estimates the DPH has "received 
indicate it is most realistic for the DPH to count on receiving 6 
to 8 percent less (or $108,000 to $144,000 less) than the $1.8 
million realignment figure, or approximately $1,656,000 to 
$1,692,000. 

2. A Disability Access Checklist has been prepared by DPH 
and is included in the file. 

3. The Summary of Grant Request, as prepared by DPH, is 
attached. 

4. The LIMA Standard Agreement for FY 1991-92 stipulates 
that all claims for unreimbursed costs made by the County of 
San Francisco must be presented to the State Department of 
Health by March 31, 1993. 

5. Ms. Leigh reports that, to date, the City has submitted an 
estimated claim total of $2.3 million (based on the DPH's 
actual fiscal year 1990-91 request for reimbursement under 
the LIMA Program) to the State Department of Health. She 
also notes that the DPH is in the process of hiring outside 
consultants to assist in compiling the actual fiscal year 1991- 
92 claims figures for cost reports to be submitted to the State 
Department of Health for reimbursement, and that the DPH 
has budgeted $40,000 to pay for the work of these consultants. 

It should be noted that the DPH budgeted $40,000 for 
compiling LIMA cost reports in fiscal year 1991-92 before 
realignment was instituted around December, 1991. 
Realignment has created some confusion during the 
transition period about whether SLIAG revenues will come 
from the State by way of SLIAG funds provided through the 
Federal government or by way of realignment revenues. 

BOARD OF SIJPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Ms. Paula Ferland, Hospital Eligibility Coordinator at San 
Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), advises that the State 
Department of Health gives the counties discretion as to 
which costs they wish to reimburse out of the SLIAG funds 
provided, and that, for example, the DPH would be able to pay 
100 percent of the costs incurred for the work of these 
consultants if it chose to do so. 

6. According to Ms. Leigh, out of the fiscal year 1990-91 claim 
total of $2.3 million which the DPH submitted to the State 
Department of Health under the LIMA Program, the DPH 
was only actually reimbursed $1.9 million, due to a shortage 
of funds. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution for retroactivity. Approve the 
proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



item No. Healti .. .'omnission - Summary of Crai Re quest 



Rev. 4/10/90 



,- . State Dept. of Health Services ,,...,„„ Central Administration 
Grantor £ Division 

Contact Person Peter Abbott, M.D. Section MIA Program 



Address 714/744 "P" Street Contact Person Fred Milligan 

Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone 554-2673 

Amount Requested S Up to $2.5 Million Application Deadline NA 

Term: From 7/1/91 To 6/30/92 Notification Expected NA 

Health Commission Doard of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



T. Item Description: Request to (apply for) (accept. and expend) a (Held) (continuation) (allocation) (&0jfD^p(tAiWr/ «r/a) 
( o«ic ^^pri.. -«*.) gnml - m lhc amounl of s 2.5 Mill, from the period of 7/1/91 to 6/30/92 

to provide-, legalized indigent medical assistance (LIMA) funds services, 
under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 

Slim TTl 2TT: ( Caazxi/aifaey, Docd tddrcjaed; nomtw ♦ c^rsp' •er««i: ■ C**WM aad proviifai ) 

Request to apply for, accept and expend the 1991-92 FY allocation of funds up - to the 

amount of $2.5 million from the State Dept. of Health Services for the period of"7/l/9 1 

to 6/30/92 for legalized indigent medical assistance (LIMA) funds under the Immigrati on 

Reform and Control Act (IRCA) . Disbursement of funds will be based on quarterly cost 

reports submitted by the County for unreimbursed costs of providing medical care servi ces 

~ , . . to IRCA legalized persons. 

TTT. Outcomes/Qbiectives: & 

To provide health care services to persons legalized under IRCA. 

TV, Effect* of Red uction or Termination of These Fund*: 



V. Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Reo. Match Approved tn 

Two Yea-j Ago P»n Yc->r/Orig. Proposed Change 

Grant Amount $2.5 mill ion 

Personnel 

Equipment 

'Contract Svc. 

Mat. £: Supp. 

Facilities/Space 

Other 



Indirect Costs 20% of sal aries. 

VT. Data Procaine 



|U-«Q Qj(^li,7vt) 

VTT. Personnel 

f/t esc 
p/t esc 

Contractual 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees -working part-time on this grant: 



will grant funded emplovees be retained after this grant terminates? If so. Hov 



liJUL Contractual Service*: Open Bid Sole Source tii"*.^-,..^ ««<,«.« iocE*c=nioor«>) 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item lg - File 146-92-10.1 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Community Public Health Services (CPHS) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health 
(DPH), Community Public Health Services, to accept and 
expend a grant of $1,053,333, from the State Office of Health 
Services, for breast and cervical cancer screening and 
diagnostic services, waiving indirect costs. 

$1,053,333 

June 1, 1992 to June 30, 1994 (two years) 

State Office of Health Services 

Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-92-10) which authorized the Department of Public 
Health to apply for a grant of $1,128,256 from the California 
Department of Health Services for breast and cervical cancer 
screening services to the residents of San Francisco; waiving 
indirect costs and providing for ratification of action already 
taken. 

In the interim, the State Office of Health Services has notified 
the DPH that it is awarding the DPH a total grant amount of 
$1,053,333 for breast and cervical cancer screening services 
over a two year period, consisting of $475,000 in the first year 
and $578,333 in the second year. 

This grant will provide fee-for-service reimbursement for 
screening and diagnostic mammography, clinical breast 
examinations, pelvic examinations, Pap Smears, colposcopy 
(cervical examinations), colposcopy directed biopsy and 
pathology. These services will be provided through the DPH's 
public health centers and community clinics. The grant is 
primarily targeted at serving low income (those meeting the 
State's 200 percent of Federal poverty level guidelines, which 
is an income level of $13,240 per year for a single person), 
uninsured minority women aged 40 years and older. In 
addition, some services (primarily physical examinations 
and Pap Smears) will also be made available to younger 
women who are not covered under the Office of Family 
Planning reimbursement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Budget: 



This grant was developed by a consortium of agencies led by 
the DPH, Community Public Health Services. Consortium 
agencies that will provide direct services by subcontract 
include: Northeast Medical Services, Mission Neighborhood 
Health Center, Women's Health Center at San Francisco 
General Hospital (SFGH), South of Market Clinic and the 
UCSF Mobile Mammography Van. 



CPHS Primary Care Clinics 
Reimbursement for physical 
examinations, Pap Smears, 
colposcopy, colposcopy-directed 
biopsy and pathology. 

Contractual Services 

Northeast Medical Services 

Reimbursement for physical exams, 
Pap Smears, mammography, 
colposcopy, colposcopy-directed 
biopsy and pathology. 

Mission Neighborhood Health Center 
Reimbursement for physical exams 
and Pap Smears. 

Women's Health Center (SFGH) 

Reimbursement for physical exams, 
Pap Smears, mammography, 
colposcopy, colposcopy-directed 
biopsy and pathology. 

South of Market Clinic 

Reimbursement for physical exams 
and Pap Smears. 

UCSF Mobile Mammography Van 
Reimbursement for screening 
mammography. 

Subtotal 



Year 1 
$130,138 



Year 2 
$158,463 



$104,161 $126,801 



52,836 62,981 



103,120 125,541 



40,475 50,384 



44,270 54,163 



Total Budget 
Required Match: None. 



$344.862 
$475,000 



$419.870 
$578,333 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Services for 6,000 to 8,000 women are expected to be provided, 
depending on whether clients receive one procedure or 
multiple services from the health centers and clinics. 

None, because the funder does not allow indirect costs for this 
grant. 

1. Dr. Geraldine Oliva of DPH reports that expenditure of 
these funds will be through purchase of service agreements 
with the State of California, under which DPH will receive 
reimbursement from the State for costs incurred as services 
are provided, based on the number of clients seen at the 
health centers. 

2. Disability Access Checklists from the health centers and 
clinics providing services under this grant as well- as their 
Request for Sole Source Contract forms are included in the 
file. Ms. Jan Murphy of DPH reports that all of the health 
centers and clinics providing such services are wheelchair- 
accessible, although a few health centers lack elevators. She 
further notes that DPH's policy has been to arrange its use of 
space so that disabled clients can be served on the first floor of 
its facilities. 

3. Attached is a copy of the Summary of Grant Request. 

4. Ms. Murphy reports that the service providers under this 
contract will be collaborating with other groups, including 
the American Cancer Society and the Women's Cancer 
Network, who will provide public and professional education, 
outreach and community organizing services to the same 
target population. The service providers under this contract 
engage in educational efforts while in the process of 
rendering screening, diagnostic and follow-up services, 
while groups such as the American Cancer Society have the 
funding and resources to do broad-based education and 
outreach. 

5. Ms. Murphy advises that DPH and its subcontractors 
projected that approximately 6,000 to 8,000 women would be 
served under this contract in the two year period by using the 
State's reimbursement fee schedule for medical services and 
examining the number of clients served by DPH and its 
subcontractors in prior years. Ms. Murphy also reports that 
the number of clients to be served was computed by assuming 
that 50 percent of the client population would be established 
patients who are already part of the health care system and 
the other 50 percent would be new patients, and that there 



BQARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



would be a 10 percent increase in the number of patients 
served, as compared to the previous year. 

6. Ms. Murphy estimates that the distribution of clients 
served by seven DPH public health centers and community 
clinics under the contract in the first year would be the 
following: 

Site Number of Unduplicated 

Women Served 
DPH Health Care Centers 1,215 

North East Medical Services 914 

Mission Neighborhood Health Center 486 
Women's Health Center 546 

(SFGH/UCSF) 

Total 3,161 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 



Hf?.1th Cnmmi^ion - < -Mi-rnm2 rv "<" ( ^ T "?^ t K^n""^ I Rev. -i/10/90 



Office of Scat, .ealth Service s Division . CPHS 



ddrcss 



,; 3CI Ttrjon Liana Lianov, M.D. Section Administration 

p. 0. Box 942732 Coni»ct Person Jan Murphy 

Sacramento, CA. 94299-0004 Telephone (415) 554-2617 

Amount Requested S 1 , 053 , 333 Application Deadline 

Term: From 6/1/92. To 6/30/94 Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



T. Ttrm Description: Request to (appear) (accept 2nd expend) a (new) (cceexccxxxi) £alk>caticsr$ (sK^rxxtttwttP^J 
toa WT i— . *j e[3M ^ tJ)C 2moun; of ST. 053, 333 from the period of 6/1/92 lo ■ 6/30/94 

to provide breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services, 
follow-up. 

Studies indicate that poor cancer survival rates in low-income groups are due 

to late diagnosis. While screening is available, access to such services is often 

deterred by lack of knowledge of preventive care and poor access to community and 

public resources." This project will provide outreach, education, screening and 

follow-up to 6,000 -of low-income women. 

TTT. Ootcnmr</Qbifctivf s: 

The project expects to improve access to daily and routine diagnosis services 

and to promote preventive, health care among the target population. In addition, 

improved diagnosis screening, follow-up and quality assurance screening will be 

established. 
TV, T.rQrrc n f "Rrducti^" gr T.rmingtiwi nf Thr^f Eggj*£ 

Without _this funding," fewer low-income women will receive early cancer screening and 
follow-up serv ices. Increases in later stage disease; and mortality due to unde- 
tected breast and cervical cancer. 

V. FinzncJ2T Tnfnrmg tion: 

'Rto. Match Antirnvrd Vn 



Gr22t Amount 


:e 

Sv 


Col 
Two 


\ 
Vein A jo 




Co 

Pill 


Yrrr/Orij. 


Col. C 
r.-ODOsid 
$1,0*53,333 


cm. a 

Cntnje 




Personnel 















Zaulpment 

















"Contract Svc. 











-$764,732 






Mat. &. Sudd. 















Facilities/Spa 







— 


■ ■ ■ 








OtherMedical 


CS . 






$288,601 






Indirect Costs 













VT. n ?T? Pro 


















(cjs» u)m^ »W-c) 


] 






VTT, P.rtnnr. 


















F/T CSC 




PAT CSC 


















Contractual 



















So^rce(s) of non-;r2ot funding for salaries of CSC employees working par:-time on this jrant 
N/A 

» ill jrant funded employees be retained 2fter ibis ;rant terminates? If so, How? 

KIA ; 

-VTTT, r n M- ? r;,| ? l C-v; r .c : Qp Cn Bjd Sol; Source XX U' -•«.•*•«. ««i S~.« »« 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item lh - File 146-92-32 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Required Match: 



Budget: 



No. of Persons 
Served: 



Indirect Costs: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health, 
Laguna Honda Hospital, to apply for, accept and expend a 
State grant for handicapped transportation services to the 
residents of San Francisco; waiving indirect costs. 

$35,600 

State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Purchase of Passenger Van with Wheelchair Lift 

The proposed grant funds would be used for the purchase of a 
new 15 passenger modified van with a fully automated 
wheelchair lift and a mobile radio for the Adult Day Health 
Service at Laguna Honda Hospital. The Adult Day Health 
Service provides services to the elderly in the community 
including picking up and dropping off clients at their homes 
and providing a program of activities at the Adult Day Health 
Center designed to provide physical and mental stimulation. 
Many of the client population have physical limitations, and 
the proposed purchase of a modified passenger van with a 
wheel chair lift would be able to accommodate these 
passengers. The Adult Day Health Service at LHH is directed 
towards seniors living in the Outer Richmond, Park Merced 
and Sunset areas. 

$8,900 to be funded through funds included in the Laguna 
Honda Hospital's FY 1991-92 budget. Therefore, the total 
project budget including cash match would be $44,500 
($35,600 proposed grant award plus $8,900 (20 percent) cash 
match). 

The entire $44,500 would be used for the purchase of one 15 
passenger modified van with an automated wheelchair lift 
and a mobile radio. 



Approximately 45 persons currently enrolled in the Adult 
Day Health Service. 

None. Caltrans prohibits the use of grant funds for indirect 
costs. Therefore, the proposed resolution would waive 
indirect costs. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Linda Karpowich of LHH, there are 

currently five passenger vans in operation for the Adult Day 
Health Service at LHH. Ms. Karpowich reports that four of 
these vans are modified with a wheelchair lift. These vans 
are used to pick up an average of 45 daily passengers living in 
the Outer Richmond, Park Merced and Sunset areas. Ms. 
Karpowich indicates that the five vans can accommodate a 
total of 44 passengers and eight wheelchair passengers, for a 
total of 52 passengers. Ms. Karpowich indicates that the type 
of van which LHH would purchase would likely be able to 
accommodate six additional passengers and two additional 
wheelchair passengers. Therefore, assuming six vans are 
operational, the Adult Day Health Service program at 
Laguna Honda would be able to accommodate up to 50 
passengers, plus ten wheelchair passengers, for a total of 60 
passengers. As noted above, on average, 45 persons attend 
the Adult Day Health Service program daily. 

2. Ms. Karpowich estimates that the maintenance costs for 
the existing five vans is approximately $6,000 each, or $30,000 
annually. Ms. Karpowich also estimates that the new van 
would only require approximately $2,500 annually during the 
initial years. Therefore, the total maintenance costs for six 
vans would be approximately $32,500 annually initially. 
However, Ms. Karpowich indicates that based on previous 
grant awards made by Caltrans, and given that Caltrans has 
yet to review the proposed request for funding, LHH would 
probably not have the proposed van fully operational for 
approximately 18 months. Therefore, it is not likely that the 
estimated additional maintenance costs of $2,500 would be 
incurred during fiscal year 1992-93. According to Mr. Evan 
Chan of LHH, these maintenance costs for the Adult Day 
Health Service program are paid for with the LHH budget, of 
which approximately 13 percent is funded through the 
General Fund. 

3. According to Ms. Karpowich, although on average there 
are approximately 45 persons daily which attend the Adult 
Day Health Service program, up to 60 persons have requested 
to attended the program on a given day. Ms. Karpowich 
indicates that because the van capacity is currently limited to 
52 passengers, the purchase of an additional van would 
enable the LHH to expand its services to additional clients. 
Ms. Karpowich reports that private clients currently pay a 
sliding scale between $30-$65 daily, LHH receives 
approximately $46 for Medi-Cal eligible patients, and the 
Veterans' Administration pays LHH $55 for clients enrolled 
under their program. Ms. Karpowich reports that 
expanding services could increase revenues for the program, 
without having to increase staff or other program costs. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



4. Ms. Karpowich indicates that because the existing five 
vans can only accommodate eight wheelchair passengers, 
some of the semi-ambulatory passengers are currently lifted 
into the vans and assisted into passenger seats, but it would 
be easier if these persons could be accommodated as 
wheelchair passengers. 

5. The LHH has completed a "Disability Access Checklist" 
which is in the file. 

6. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" as completed 
by the DPH. 

7. Although initial additional maintenance costs of 
approximately $2,500 annually would be incurred by the 
purchase of an additional van, funded through LHH's 
budget, of which approximately 13 percent is funded through 
the General Fund, because increasing the number of clients 
for the Adult Day Health Service program would increase 
revenues, without increasing staff or other program costs, 
the Budget Analyst recommends approval of the proposed 
resolution. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Jj /-?Uh C^mmi^inn - ^iimm?rv ni (,r?p! >.'_-nij~c:T Rev. 4/10/90 | 



• v *- - State Department of 

&rantor Transportation (Caltrans) Division Laguna Honda Hospital 

Contact Person Charlotte Cosulich Scc.Iod Adult Day Health Center 

Address P.O. Box 7310 Contact Person Linda Karpowich 

San Francisco, CA 94120-7310 Telephone 415-664-1102 

Amount Requested S 35,600 Application Deadline J une L 1992 

Term: From To Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



T. Hem Description; Request to (apptyfor) (accept and expend) a (new) (K«ttt>rx»2idoa) (allocation) (-awgXrt«wa<i<*fino &) 

(G^Tt-^— —*) ET2ni jj, ^ amount of S 35,600 from the period of to 

to pmvHrir. transportation . sen-ices. 

TT. Slimm?. r V ! ( Cott^urVWwT". «ei uUrx^od; lttmlxj ♦ fyvwj* *cr-e^; «cr*iocJ tad prer^Ocn ) 

T he Adult Day Health Service at Laguna Honda Hospital provides services to the elderly i n 
t he community, including picking up and dropping off clients at their homes and providin g 
a program of activities at the Center designed to provide physical and mental stimulatio n- 
M any of the client population have physical limitations such that a specially modified 
v ehicle which can transport people in wheelchairs is necessary. 

TTT. Outcome c/Qbiectivec: 

T he funds requested under this grant will be used exclusively in the purchase of a new 1 5 
p assenger modified van with fully automated wheelchair lift and a mobile radio. The exis t- 
i ng vans are old and nearing the end of their useful life and need for day health transpo r- 
tation services is expanding. 

TV, EP>ClS " f Rrductior n r Trrrningtinn of Thr<r ^untft; 

I f these funds are not awarded, Laguna Honda Hospital will be unable to purchase this van 
a nd vital services to the elderly and handicapped in the community will be curtailed. 

V. Financial Tnformetion: 

Col. K Col. B Col. C 

Two Vein Ago Pm Ycaj/Orij. Proposed 

Grant Amount 35,600 



Personnel N/A 



Equipment . 35 ,600 

'Contract Svc. N/A 



Mat. & Supp. N/A 

Facilities/Space . N/A 

Other . N/A 



Indirect Costs N/A 

N/A 



F/T CSC N/A 



P/T CSC N/A 



Contractual N/A 



Col. D 

Chmgc 


Fee. Match 
8,900 

N/A 


AflnrnvfiJ hr 








8,900 
N/A 








N/A 


N/A 




N/A 






N/A 










N/A 






N/A 











Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC emplovees working part-time on this grant: 
N/A 



Will jrast funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 
. N/A 



•VTTT. rn.,r^„ l;l c;. r v jr .c : njt .„ Bid N/A Sole Source N/A 



37 






Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Item li - File 147-92-3 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount : 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 



San Francisco Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to 
apply for Federal grant funds for the purchase of foreign 
language materials for fiscal year 1992-93; waiving indirect 
costs. 

Not to exceed $85,000 

October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1993 

U.S. Department of Education 

Foreign Language Program - Ethnic Focus Centers 

The proposed grant funds would be used to provide Spanish, 
Chinese, Vietnamese and other Asian core collections of 
ready reference, software and popular library materials in 
various formats for adults and children at the Main Library. 
Funds will be used to create adult and children's Ethnic 
Focus Centers, which will enhance the existing non-English 
language collections, and will be tailored to the needs of the 
diverse ethnic populations of San Francisco. The proposed 
grant funds would be used to respond to changing 
demographics in the Tenderloin, which according to the 1990 
Census of Population, has had a 93 percent increase in Asian 
residents. The Public Library currently circulates 450,000 
foreign language items per year. The proposed grant funds 
would be used to supplement the existing circulation. 



Children's Books (all languages) 

Spanish 

Vietnamese 

Chinese 

Japanese 

Korean 

Southeast Asian 

Software (all languages) 

Total 



$12,000 

17,000 

13,000 

28,000 

4,000 

3,000 

5,000 

3,000 

$85,000 



None. 

None. The U.S. Department of Education prohibits the 
inclusion of indirect costs. Therefore, the proposed 
resolution requests that indirect costs be waived for this 
grant. 



BOARD OF SU PERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Elizabeth Hope Hayes of the Public 

Library, the grant application deadline was March 9, 1992, 
and the Public Library has already applied for the proposed 
grant funds prior to requesting authorization from the Board 
of Supervisors. Therefore, the proposed resolution should be 
amended to authorize the Public Library to retroactively apply 
for the proposed grant funds. 

2. Ms. Hayes reports that the Public Library has outlined the 
amount of the proposed grant funds to be spent on each type 
of foreign language materials, however, the Public Library 
has not specifically selected which materials would be 
purchased. In addition, the Public Library anticipates that 
any additional cataloguing costs would be absorbed with 
existing Public Library staff. 

3. The Public Library has completed a "Disability Access 
Checklist" which is in the file. 

4. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" as completed 
by the Public Library. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the Public 
Library to apply for the proposed grant funds retroactively. 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



39 






;rile Number 

Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 

To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution: 

Department: Library 

Contact Person: Elizabeth Hope Hayes Telephone: 557-4200 

Project Title: Foreign Language Program - Ethnic Focus Centers 

Grant Source: U.S. Department of Education. Library Services and rnnstruct.in n Act (LSCA) 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

San Francisco Public Library Library System includes the Main Library, 19 neighborhood 
branches, seven reading centers, a library for the blind and print-handicapped and 
a bookmobile. Within the Main Library there are seven major subject departments, 
special services for the Deaf and Hearing-impaired and a literacy program, Project 
Read. Systemwide over 3.2 million items circulate annually. Special emphasis is 
placed on meeting the information needs of San Francisco's multi-lingual, multi- 
cultural, economically diverse communities. 

The purpose of this grant is to provide Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and other 
Asian core collections of ready reference, software and popular library materials 
in various formats for adults and children at the Main Library. Funds will be used 
to create adult and children's Ethnic Focus Centers, which will enhance the existing 
non-English language collections, and will be tailored to the needs of the diverse 
ethnic populations of San Francisco. This grant responds to changing demographics 
in the Tenderloin, which according to the 1990 Census of Population has had a 
93% increase in Asian residents. The Library circulated 450,000 foreign language 
items per year. This grant will supplement the Library's materials budget and 
enable purchase of thousands of indispensible items. 

Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $85,000.00 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $85,000.00 

Required Matching Funds: n o ne 



Number of Positions Created and Funded 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services 



Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? "-a- 



40 



Gfan't Application Inf -nation Form 
Page 2 



Tern of Grant 



Oct. 1. 1992 - Sept. 30, 1993 



Date Department Notified of Available funds 
Application Due Date: March 9, 1992 



August 1992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 

Grants will.be awarded to libraries that demonstrate effective management plans, 
high quality design, committment to serving under-represented groups, cost 
effectiveness, needs of service group. Funds are for purchase of materials 
for library collections, such materials to be in languages other than English. 




ting City Librarian 
roval 



41 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20 , 1992 

Item li - File 192-92-2 

Department: Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the 

Department of Parking and Traffic and the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to apply for, accept and expend a 
continuation State grant for bicycle/pedestrian projects, 
forgoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 

Grant Amount: $450,000 

Grant Period: Approximately June 1, 1992 through May 30, 1995 

Source of Funds: State Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 



Project: 
Description: 



Bicycle/Pedestrian projects 

The State Transportation Development Act (TDA) was passed 
in 1971. Article 3 of the TDA includes provisions for 
pedestrian and bicycle allocations. While Article 3 allows the 
use of funds for support of public transportation systems or 
community transit services, or for local street and road 
purposes in lieu of bicycle/pedestrian projects, the Board of 
Supervisors passed a resolution (File 196-90-6) on October 29, 
1990 which urged the Mayor to support the full use of TDA 
Article 3, Bicycle/Pedestrian funds for bicycle/pedestrian 
improvements. If instead, the TDA funds were used for 
transit-related projects and appropriated to MUNI's budget, 
then these revenues could be used to offset MUNI's budget of 
which approximately 42.5 percent is General Fund revenues. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Parking and Traffic to fund the following projects: 



Bicycle Racks 


$100,000 


Bicycle signing and marking 




improvements 


115,000 


Bicycle safety education programs 




and a City bike route map 


10,000 


Installation of handicapped curb 




ramps 


200,000 


Improvement of pedestrian 




walkways in Bernal Heights 


25.000 


Total Budget 


$450,000 



Required Match: None. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



kl 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20 , 1992 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



None. The State does not reimburse for indirect costs under 
TDA, Article 3. 

1. According to Mr. Tim Johnson, of the Department of 
Parking and Traffic (DPT), existing DPT staff would complete 
the bicycle signing, lane striping and mapping projects as 
follows: 

Bicycle signing and marking 

improvements $115,000 

Bicycle safety education programs 

and a City bike route map 10.000 

Total $125,000 

In addition, Mr. Johnson reports that the remaining projects 
would be work-ordered to the Department of Public Works 
(DPW), using existing DPW staff: 



Bicycle Racks 

Installation of handicapped curb 

ramps 
Improvement of pedestrian 

walkways in Bernal Heights 
Total 



$100,000 

200,000 

25.000 
$325,000 



2. According to Ms. Karen Gelman of the DPW, based on a 
City-wide survey of major neighborhoods and shopping 
districts completed by the DPW and the DPT, approximately 
970 curbs were identified in need of handicapped curb ramps. 
Ms. Gelman reports that although the total cost to install 
these 970 ramps would be approximately $1 million, the 
$200,000 in proposed TDA funds would be used to install 
curbs in the most critical high traffic areas. Approximately 
194 handicapped ramps would be installed with the proposed 
TDA funds (based on $1 million total estimated cost for 970 
curbs equals approximately $1,031 for each curb). Ms. 
Gelman reports that the DPW is currently attempting to 
acquire approximately $800,000 in Federal grant funds for the 
installation of the remaining handicapped curb ramps. 

3. Although the Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution 
in 1990 (File 196-90-6) which supported the full use of TDA 
Article 3, bicycle/pedestrian funds for bicycle improvements, 
given that the proposed TDA funds could be used to offset 
MUNI operations costs, approval of the proposed resolution is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

4. The DPT has completed a "Disability Access Checklist" 
which is in the file. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20 , 1992 

5. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request." 

Recommendation: Given that the proposed TDA funds could be used to offset 
MUNI operations costs, approval of the proposed resolution is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Attachment 
mm' No. ~ - - Summary of Grant Request 

State TDA Funds - Article 3 Division Department of Parking & Trai 



Rev. 4/10/90 



Grar.tor 



Contact rcrson Metropolitan Transportation Section 

ccrnrnission contact Person Tim Johnson 

Address — . Contact 1 crson 

Telephone fgFggZj 



Amount Requested S ^50,000 Application Deadline 

Term: From 7/1/92 To 5/30/95 Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee _ 

Full Doard 

T. Item Description: Request lo (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
( c«fc .pprop^e -orf.) grant m lhc amoual f $ 450,000 from the period of 7/1/92 to 5/30/95 

to provide Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement services. 

Sutnrn3rV" ( Coaicjcl/hiitory; docA uldrcBod; number + groups served; ■crvioa «nd provider* ) 

The proposed funds would be used for support bicycle/pedestrian improvements, 

including Installation of signing and marking handicapped curb ramps and improved 
pedestrian walkways in Bemal Heights. 



III. Outcomes/Objectives: 

Improve bicycle/pedestrian conditions, 



TV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 



V. Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Rep. Match Approved by 

Two Years Ago Past Ycar/Orig. Proposed Change 

Grant Amount $472.313 $450.000 ($22,313 ) 

Personnel 

Equipment _^____^_ 

'Contract Svc. 

Mat. & Supp. 

Facilities/Spalce 

other ZZIZZ SA/2,313 $450, 00U ($22,313) ___ 

Indirect Costs _■ 



YL DM? Processing 

(costs pc l - j or -d above) 

VII. Personnel 

F/T CSC N/A 

P/T CSC 

Contractual 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this srant: 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, Hon 



*VIII. O'ntriictual Services: Open Bid Sole Source 



45 



( ii" tolc »o_-cc. «n*^ Ri.-xc for Exemption Form ) 






Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item Ik - File 101-91-56.1 

Department Juvenile Probation 

Item: Request for release of reserved funds to cover local share 

costs not eligible for State funds for various capital 
improvement projects, Juvenile Probation, fiscal year 1991- 
92. 

Amount: $333,392 

Source of Funds: General Fund - General Reserve 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 

supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-92-56) for 
$450,000 and reserved $333,392 pending the passage of 
legislation to accept and expend Proposition 86 State bond 
funds. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Juvenile Probation Department to accept and expend 
$1,970,838 of Proposition 86 State bond funds (File 141-92-1). 
Under Proposition 86, the State will reimburse the City for 
capital improvement projects. The requested release of 
reserved funds of $333,392 would provide the City's portion of 
funds, which the State has determined as ineligible for 
reimbursement under Proposition 86. Prior to the City 
accepting and expending these Proposition 86 funds, the City 
must demonstrate its ability to cover local costs which are not 
eligible for State funding. 

The Juvenile Probation Department is currently a defendant 
in a lawsuit by the Youth Law Center for infrastructure 
deficiencies involving the facility's fire, life and safety 
systems. The requested release of reserved funds would be 
used for the Department of Public Works (DPW) fees for 
project management, design, construction management 
services in the Bureau of Architecture, and consulting 
design services for the Bureau of Engineering. The projects 
for which the DPW's Bureau of Architecture and the Bureau 
of Engineering will provide project management, design and 
construction management services include miscellaneous 
improvement, fire, health and safety projects for the Youth 
Guidance Center (YGC) including various building roofing 
projects, emergency asbestos work, diesel fuel tank 
installation, repair of fire alarms at Juvenile Hall, 
installation of fire doors in corridors, cottage security window 
installation and cottage bathroom repairs. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Patricia Grice of the Juvenile Probation 

Department, although the Department was authorized to 
accept and expend Proposition 86 funds in the amount of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

$1,970,838, the State only awarded the Department $1,351,637, 
a difference of $619,201. Therefore, the total Proposition 86 
project budget is $1,685,029 (consisting of $1,351,637 in State 
Proposition 86 funds and $333,392 in General Fund monies). 

2. According to Mr. Howard Wong of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW), most of the above-listed construction 
projects at YGC would be work-ordered to the DPW. 
However, Mr. Wong indicates that the DPW has not yet 
determined whether some of these projects would be done 
through an outside contractor. For instance, Mr. Wong 
reports that in the event that asbestos is uncovered, a 
contractor would be selected through emergency contract 
procedures. 

3. Mr. Wong reports that the above-listed projects would be 
completed through July, 1993. Mr. Wong reports ~that the 
average hourly rates for project staff, including the Bureaus 
overhead rate, is approximately $65 to $70 hourly. Therefore, 
the reserved funds would be used for approximately 4,939 
hours. However, since some of the above-listed construction 
projects may be done through an outside contractor, it has 
not yet been determined whether some of the $333,392 in 
reserved funds may go to an outside contractor, or whether 
these funds would be used entirely for DPW overhead. 

4. Given that the Juvenile Probation Department is currently 
a defendant in a lawsuit by the Youth Law Center, and given 
that the reserved funds must be released prior to the 
Department receiving Proposition 86 State bond funds to 
complete the projects, the Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of the requested release of reserved funds, even 
though it has not yet been determined whether some of the 
$333,392 in reserved funds may go to an outside contractor, or 
whether these funds would be used entirely for DPW 
overhead. 

Recommendations: 1. Release the reserved funds in the amount of $333,392. 

2. Request that the Juvenile Probation Department and the 
Department of Public Works submit a reports which includes 
a detailed budget, and the MBE, WBE status of any 
contractors used for the above-listed capital improvement 
projects at the Youth Guidance Center. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 11 - File 94-91-4.3 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Request for release of a budgetary reserve of 1991-92 Federal 
Transit Administration Section 9 Capital Funds, including 
$51,598 in Federal funds and $13,402 in local matching funds 
for a total of $65,000 for Municipal Railway Contract No. MR- 
1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, 
Maintenance Building, Paint Booth Fans Modification. 

$65,000 (See Comment #1) 

Urban Mass Transit 

Administration (UMTA) 

Section 9 Capital Assistance $51,598 

Local Match 13.402 

Total $65,000 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 94-91-4) which authorized the Public Utilities 
Commission (PUC) to apply for, accept and expend 
$13,815,120 in Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration 
(UMTA) Section 9 formula assistance funds, and apply for, 
accept and expend $3,453,780 in local matching funds for a 
total of $17,268,900. Of the $17,268,900 in capital project funds 
available, a total of $13,982,500 was reserved ($11,114,000 of 
Federal funds and $2,778,500 of local funds), pending the 
selection of the contractors, budgets for the contractors, and 
the contractors' MBE/WBE/LBE status. According to the 
Controller's Office, $97,479 of the $13,982,500 reserve has been 
previously released by the Finance Committee. If the 
reserved funds of $65,000 ($51,598 of Federal funds and 
$13,402 of local funds) are released, a balance of $13,820,021 
would be left on reserve. 

Included in the original $13,982,500 reservation of funds is 
the sum of $8,342,600 that was reserved for Fixed Facility 
Rehabilitation. The projects included in this request for 
release of funds are a part of the Fixed Facility Rehabilitation 
allocation. 

1. The source of funds for the $13,402 in matching funds 
under this request for the release of the reserved funds of 
$65,000, would be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Transportation Planning and Development 

(TP&D) Grant $3,286 

Transit Impact Development Fees (TIDF) 3,286 

San Francisco Municipal Railway Improvement 

Corporation (SFMRIC) 6.830 

Total match: $13,402 

$56,781 of the reserved funds would be used for an outside 
contract to modify the paint booth fans in MUNI's Curtis E. 
Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, Maintenance 
Building. The remainder of the $65,000 request ($8,219) would 
be work ordered to the Department of Public Works to 
complete work on a silk screen sign shop. 

2. The PUC reports that bids for the proposed contract were 
received and opened on January 27, 1992. The contract for 
the modification of the paint booth fans was awarded to E. 
Mitchell, Inc., a San Francisco based firm, based on its low 
bid of $43,450. E. Mitchell, Inc., is pending certification as a 
women-owned business and a locally-owned business by the 
City's Human Rights Commission. The budget for the 
proposed project is attached. 

3. Mr. John O'Neill of MUNI's Engineering Division reports 
that the 15 percent contingency is standard for rehabilitation 
projects because of the potential for unforeseen field 
conditions that often result in contract modifications. 

4. Ms. Marianne Malveaux of the PUC reports that the 
proposed paint booth fan modifications project is to be 
completed within 90 days of the contractor's Notice to Proceed 
date. 



Recommendations: Release the reserved funds in the amount of $65,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Attachment 



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 
CAPITAL PROJECT EXPENDITURE AUTHORIZATION 
HETCHY MUNI WATER 
TITLE GENEVA - PAINT BOOTH/SHOP MODIFICATIONS 



$65,000 INITIATION DATE 



COMPLETION DATE 



%PWJS£± 



TASK DESCRIPTION 

1. UEB SBRVICES INC FRINGES 
& INDIRECT COSTS 

A. PROJ. MANAGEMENT 

B. ENG. SERVICES 
C CONSTR. ENG. 

D. OTHER DIRECT EXPENSE 
(TRAVEL, M&S.REVOLVINO FUND, ETC) 
TOTAL UBB 

2. NON-UEB SVCS. INC FRINGES 
& INDIRECT COSTS 

COSTS 

A. PROJ. MANAGEMENT 

B. ENG. SERVICES 
C CONSTR. ENG. 

D. OTHER DIRECT EXPENSE 
(TRAVEL, M&S.REVOLVING FUND, IDWO) 
TOTAL NON-UEB 

3. CONSULTANT SERVICES 

4. CONTRACTS 

A. CONSTRUCTION 

B. MATERIALS 
C EQUIPMENT 
D.TAX(&.25*>) 

TOTAL CONTRACTS 

5. CONTIGENCY (15%) 

TOTAL BUDGET 

6. UNPROGRAMMED 
TOTAL APPROPRIATION 



INITIAL 



CONCEPTUAL 



BASELINE 



50 



8&^ 



50 



51,013 


$1,013 


$1,300 


$1,300 


$4,500 


$4,500 


$8,219 


$8,219 



$15,032 
$0 



$43,450 


$43,450 


SO 


so 


SO 


$6,518 


$43,450 
$6,518 



$65,000 



$65,000 



' MECT MANAGER UEB MANAGEMENT 



ENT MANAGEMENT FINANCE BUREAU 



I AIS & FMS REVENUE SOURCE INFORMATION (TO BE FURNISHED BY PUC 
fANCE) 

MlS FUND GROUP/ FUND INDEX CODE 

* >JECT/W/PHASE 



! REFERENCE: RESPONSIBILITY CENTER 



PROJECT NO. 

DATE PROCESSED 



50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item lm -File 101-91-12.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Clean Water Program (CWP) 

Release of reserved funds for environmental consultant 
services for the Bayside Treatment Evaluation Project. 

$250,000 



Source of Funds: General Obligation Sewer Bond Interest Accumulation 

Description: In appropriating $750,000 for an evaluation of the Bayside 

wastewater treatment facilities and discharge plans for 
treated wastewater in October of 1991 (File 101-91-12), the 
Board of Supervisors reserved $250,000 for preparation of an 
Environmental Impact Statement pending Departmental 
submission of the contractor's name, its MBE/WBE status, 
and budget information. 

The Bayside wastewater facilities, located along the eastern 
boundaries of the City, are an interdependent system of 
transport, storage, pumping and treatment of sewage with 
the goal of reducing sewage overflows. The majority of these 
facilities have been planned, designed and constructed. The 
elements around the Northern Waterfront to the Central 
Basin are completed and functioning as are the facilities in 
the Yosemite Basin. Construction is ongoing in the 
Southeastern district, in the Sunnydale area and in the 
Central Basin area (Mariposa facility) and are expected to be 
completed in the Spring of 1992. In the Islais Creek area, the 
design of facilities is now underway and the Clean Water 
Program is ready to advertise for construction on the first of 
the combined sewer overflow control projects in the area. 
Planning is completed for the Islais Creek station to 
transport flow to the Southeast Plant for treatment. 

To date, no examination has been made of the ultimate level 
of treatment of wastewater and how and where to dispose of 
or reuse the wastewater. Currently, the City discharges all 
of its treated wastewater into the Bay. The City's 1975 long- 
range plan called for a crosstown tunnel to carry the treated 
wastewater to the ocean. The Department is now 
reconsidering this original plan to evaluate different 
scenarios such as reusing the reclaimed wastewater, 
continuing to dispose of it into the Bay, building the 
crosstown tunnel or a mixture of all three. According to the 
Clean Water Program, three issues regarding water 
treatment and disposal now face the City, as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

1. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has issued a 
revised Basin Plan for the Bay Area which includes new and 
more stringent requirements for discharge of sewage flow 
into the Bay and the Ocean. 

2. The drought has caused the Clean Water program to 
consider reusing wastewater rather than discharging it. 
(The Board of Supervisors adopted legislation in 1991 (File 
188-91-2) establishing requirements for the use of reclaimed 
water in the City). 

3. Regarding the discharge of treated effluent to Islais Creek 
during the wet weather season, the discharge location does 
not provide the required dilution for treated effluent. 

To address these three issues, the Board of Supervisors 
previously approved the $750,000 supplemental appropriation, 
to fund studies and analysis on the best options and 
combinations for treatment, disposal and reuse of dry and 
wet weather wastewater. Included in the $750,000 
supplemental appropriation request was $250,000 to fund the 
development of an Environmental Impact statement, which 
is the subject of this request for release of reserved funds. 

The Clean Water Program intends to retain EIP Associates 
under an existing contract to perform the Environmental 
Impact statement. The contract amount would be $283,583. 
According to the Department, EIP Associates was originally 
selected in 1989 to complete environmental documents 
pertaining to the Bayside Facilities. The Department reports 
that the work was postponed because the Regional Water 
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulations concerning 
Bayside wastewater discharges had not been issued. 

The schedule and the budget for the development of the 
proposed Environmental Impact statement are attached 
(Attachments I and II): 

Comments: 1. EIP Associates is not an MBE or a WBE firm. However, 

EIP Associates has agreed to subcontract 40 percent of the 
proposed contract value of $283,583, or approximately 
$114,000. In addition, the City's Human Rights Commission 
has reviewed the proposed contract and has determined that 
EIP has met the City's pre-award affirmative action 
requirements, as set forth in Chapters 12B and 12D of the San 
Francisco Administrative Code. 

2. Mr. Mike Quan of the Clean Water Program reports that 
the additional sum of $33,583 to complete the contractual 
work ($283,583 less the $250,000 sum of this request) would be 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



"Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

obtained from the $500,000 remaining in the supplemental 
appropriation for evaluation of the Bayside water treatment 
facilities. 

3. The Indirect Labor sum of $86,659 shown in Attachment II 
consists of indirect salaries, rent, supplies, telephone, 
computer, and various other indirect expenses. 

4. Mr. Quan reports that the release of the $250,000 is critical 
to completing the environmental process in time to meet the 
Cease and Desist order of the Regional Water Quality Control 
Board (RWQCB) by October of 1994. 

Recommendation: Release funding in the amount of $250,000, as requested. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



53 



Attachment 



5 £ 

in 3 

1 



2 




54 



Attachment II 



EIP ASSOCIATES 

BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED COSTS 

FOR 8AYS»OE 3 OBR 



LABOR: 



RATE 



Task 1 



Task 3 



TOTAL 
HOURS 



Total Direct Labor 



1,896 



COST 



Principal II (Project Director) 


$46.00 


128 


20 


80 


228 


$10,488 


Senior Professional (Project Manager) 


26,00 


260 


144 


424 


828 


21,528 


Professional l 


24.00 




136 




136 


3,264 


Professional H 


21.00 


60 


164 




224 


4,704 


Technician 1 


20.00 


120 






120 


2,400 


Technician ll 


16.00 


80 




230 


360 


5.760 


Technician III 


12.00 















$46,144 



Indirect Labor (1.80) 
TOTAL LABOR COST 



86,659 



$134,803 



EXPENSES: 

Printing (Copycopia) (WBE) 

Travel 

Postage and Telephone 

Supplies 

TOTAL EXPENSES 



$12,000" 
1.000 
1.500 
1.500 

$16,000 



SUBCONSULTANTS. 

Dowling (MBE) 

Geo Resources (MBE) 

David Chavez (MBE) 

Bendlx (WBE) 

Water Engineering &. Modeling 

TOTAL SUBCONSULTANTS 

TOTAL COST 

FEE 

TOTAL COST AND FEE 



$42,000 ■ 
20.000- 
20,000- 
20.000- 
5,000 

$107,000 

S2S7.803 

25.780 

$283,583 



* Total of $114,000 for MBE/WBE firms, 



55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item In - File 146-91-10.3 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 

Period: 

Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
Family Health Bureau 

Requesting release of $64,000 in reserved funds for renewal 
contractual services with CAHEED Day Care Center to 
provide educational and support services to pregnant and 
postpartum African-American women and infants for the 
period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. 

$64,000 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

State Department of Health Services, Maternal Child Health 
Branch Grant 

Black Infant Health Improvement Project 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-91-10) authorizing the Department of Public Health 
to accept and expend a new grant of $214,284 from the State 
Department of Health Services to fund a project aimed at 
improving Black infant health for San Francisco residents 
for the grant period of January 1, 1991 through June 30, 1993 
(2.5 years). In addition, the same resolution authorized the 
placing of $114,000 of the $214,284 on reserve pending the 
DPH's identification of a specific contractor to establish and 
operate the Community Support Center for the Black Infant 
Health Improvement Project. The goal of the Center would 
be to provide educational and support services to 350 African- 
American pregnant and postpartum women and their 
infants residing in the Bayview Hunters Point/Visitacion 
Valley Districts of the City. Subsequently, CAHEED Day Care 
Center was selected, on a sole source basis, to provide the 
Community Support Center services. 

On February 5, 1992, the Finance Committee approved a 
request to release $50,000 from the $114,000 on reserve for a 
contract with CAHEED, Inc. for services related to the Black 
Infant Health Project for the period February 1, 1992 through 
June 30, 1992. The initial grant of $50,000 was primarily used 
for start-up costs in establishing the Community Support 
Center. 

The DPH is now requesting release of the remaining $64,000 
($114,000 less $50,000) on reserve to renew its sole source 
contract with CAHEED, Inc. to continue to provide 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

educational and support services to the same target 
population for the period July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. 
The services to be provided by CAHEED include referrals, 
counseling and individual educational sessions for 200 
African- American women on a drop-in basis; one-hour long 
group educational sessions for at least 200 women for a 
minimum of twice a month; and the provision of intensive 
support services for 8 to 12 pregnant women. In addition, 
CAHEED will provide written documentation to the DPH of 
services provided on a quarterly basis and will be represented 
at least three Black Infant Health Task Force meetings 
during the grant period. 

The DPH's Family Health Bureau's Black Infant-Health 
Improvement Program (BI-HIP), will provide on-site 
training and supervision of health workers and coordinate 
all of the Community Support Center's activities. _^A11 work 
schedules, equipment purchases and final hiring are to be 
reviewed and approved by Ms. Virginia Smyly, contract 
manager of BI-HIP. 

Budget: Personnel Positions FTEs Salaries 

2 Community Health Aides 1.0 $20,880 

1 Clerk Typist .5 7,308 

1 Social Worker .5 16,401 

1 Executive Director J, ■ 4.066 

Total Personnel 2.1 $48,655 

Fringe Benefits (21%) 10.321 

Subtotal $58,976 

Operating Expenses 

Staff Travel $600 

Consultant Services 1,200 

Accountant Services 2,520 

Materials, Supplies & Incidental Furnishings 2,204 
Staff Training 500 

7.024 

TOTAL PROJECT COSTS $66.000 

Comments: The DPH is contracting with CAHEED for a total of $116,000 

($50,000 for fiscal year 1991-92 and $66,000 for fiscal year 1992- 
93), which is $2,000 more than the $114,000 originally placed 
on reserve. Ms. Virginia Smyly of the DPH reports that 
subsequent to DPH's receipt of the original grant amount of 
$214,284 for the Black Infant Health Improvement Project, 
the State allocated an additional grant augmentation for this 

BOARD OF SI JPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



project in the amount of $175,000, for the same grant period of 
January 1, 1991 to June 30, 1993 (File 146-91-10.1). Ms. Smyly 
advises that the additional $2,000 required for the CAHEED 
contract will be paid for by the State grant augmentation. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 2 - File 100-92-3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
6, 1992. 

This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. 

On March 31, 1992, the Controller, the Mayor's Finance Director and the 
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst issued a Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall for Fiscal Year 1992-93. A revenue shortfall of between $139.2 
and $148.2 million for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year is projected in order to fund the level 
of services assumed in the original 1991-92 budget. This projected revenue 
shortfall results largely from a combination of (a) increased spending levels in 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 of $170.8 million, including $108.0 million in salary and fringe 
benefit increases and (b) reduced General Fund revenues. 

This latest projection compares to the prior revenue shortfall projection of 
$91.7 million in a joint report dated November 27, 1991. 

The $139.2 to $148.2 million projected revenue shortfall amount must be 
eliminated through either (a) a reduction in expenditures (b) increased revenue 
sources, or (c) a combination of both. 

According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, the California 
State Constitution requires that the City and County of San Francisco adopt a 
balanced budget each year. The City's Charter, Section 6.203 states that not later 
than June first of each year, the Mayor shall transmit to the Board of Supervisors 
the consolidated budget estimates for all departments and the proposed budget for 
the City and County for the ensuing fiscal year, including a detailed estimate of 
all revenues for each department and an estimate of the amount required to meet 
bond interest, redemption and other fixed charges of the City and County and the 
applicable revenues. At the same time, the Mayor is also required to submit to the 
Board of Supervisors a draft of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the 
ensuing fiscal year, which is prepared by the Controller. 

According to Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor is 
required to submit a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Delventhal 
acknowledges however that the Mayor's proposed budget may include anticipated 
revenues that have yet to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. For example, 
during the fiscal year 1991-92 budget, the Mayor submitted a proposed budget that 
included increases in the City's parking tax from 20 to 25 percent and increases in 
the MUNI Fast Pass, the projected revenues from which would balance the 
proposed expenditures. The Board of Supervisors had not yet adopted these 
revenue measures as of June, 1991 when the Mayor submitted his recommended 
budget to the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

In preparation for an anticipated shortfall in the 1992-93 budget, Ms. Teresa 
Serata of the Mayor's Office reports that initially the Mayor's Office requested that 
each department submit a reduced 10 percent proposed budget for fiscal year 1992- 
93. However, given the recent $139.2 to $148.2 million shortfall projected, the 
Mayor's Office has now requested that each department and commission review 
and resubmit their proposed 1992-93 budgets to the Mayor's Office, to include an 
additional 8 percent reduction. Because many of the departments under the Chief 
Administrative Officer (CAO) are so small, the Mayor's Office has requested an 
additional collective 8 percent reduction from all of the CAO's departments, 
rather than individually. In addition, specific reductions of $20 million each from 
the Municipal Railway (MUNI) and the Health Department were requested in 
lieu of an additional 8 percent reduction. According to Ms. Serata, the various 
City departments are currently working on these additional reductions, and such 
changes should be approved by each of the City commissions. 

According to Ms. Serata, in addition to expenditure reductions, 
departments are being encouraged by the Mayor's Office to include additional 
potential revenues that could be used to offset the additional 8 percent reduction. 

The Mayor's Office has outlined the following anticipated budget schedule. 
The Mayor's budget staff are presently finalizing each department's budget. This 
includes additional revenue ideas and enhancements for these departments. Ms. 
Jean Mariani of the Mayor's Office anticipates submitting the proposed 
departmental budgets to the Controller's Office on May 18, for reconciliation of 
individual department's numbers and the overall budget. According to Ms. 
Mariani, a draft final budget would then be submitted to the printer on 
approximately May 26 and initial copies of the Mayor's 1992-93 budget should be 
available by approximately May 27. As has been the practice in prior years, the 
Mayor's Office could provide a confidential copy of the Mayor's budget to the 
Budget Analyst's Office once copies were available from the printer, although 
complete budget information, including necessary detail and back-up materials 
would not be available until June 1, 1992. 

The Finance Committee inquired on April 8, 1992 and again on April 15, 
1992 regarding the ability of the Board of Supervisors to receive the 1992-93 budget 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline as required by the Charter, or if that is not 
possible, to receive preliminary budget data or alternative budgetary scenarios 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline. On April 22, 1992, the Mayor presented a letter 
to the members of the Finance Committee providing advance information about 
the FY 1992-93 budget, which the Mayor's Office is currently reviewing. This 
letter summarizes the budget process, meetings, explains the differences among 
the various department's budget targets, SB 855 services, etc. In addition, various 
attachments to this letter highlight specific expenditure reductions, revenue 
increases and departmental targets for the larger City departments. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

On April 22, 1992, the Finance Committee also requested additional 
information regarding which policies and priorities were being assigned to 
various City programs and services, in terms of developing the FY 1992-93 budget. 
In reviewing individual City department budgets, Ms. Foley indicated that the 
Mayor's Office is attempting to balance departmental revenue ideas with service 
reductions, with a goal of minimizing the impact on services to the public. 
However, Ms. Foley cautioned that the current administration's position that no 
new general tax increases will be imposed, in conjunction with the required costs 
of Salary Standardization and numerous Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOUs), consent decrees and other prior agreements, significantly limit the 
flexibility of the Mayor's Office in terms of which items and programs can be 
reduced in the FY 1992-93 budget. According to Ms. Foley, the Mayor's Office 
requested that each Department prioritize their budgeted programs and services 
according to a hierarchy of the most important to the least important, when 
submitting their FY 1992-93 departmental budget requests. Ms. Foley reported 
that most departments have submitted prioritized budgets with various options, 
and that the Mayor's budget staff has reviewed these individual departmental 
priorities as part of the Mayor's budget review. 

Ms. Serata reports that the FY 1992-93 budget will identify all Proposition J - 
Children's Amendment Services according to whether these services are existing 
(baseline) or new programs and services. In addition, according to Ms. Serata, 
the Mayor's budget staff is presently compiling the number of layoffs by 
department that are anticipated to be included in the FY 1992-93 budget. 

Mr. Ed Harrington of the Controller's Office reports that according to 
Section 6.306 of the Charter and based on discussions with the City Attorney, the 
Controller is not required to certify the revenues contained in the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance (annual budget). As required by Section 6.301 of the 
Charter, the Controller is responsible for periodically preparing revenue 
projections and if the Controller's revenue projections indicate a shortfall of 
revenues, the Controller has the authority to limit expenditures by City 
departments to the extent of the revenues being projected. According to Mr. 
Harrington, as historically has occurred, he anticipates that there will be 
agreement between the Controller and the Mayor's Office regarding the revenue 
estimates for FY 1992-93. 

Mr. Harrington advises that the Controller's Office has had some 
discussions with the Mayor's staff and consulted with local leading economists on 
the projected major revenues (e.g., property taxes, sales taxes, motor vehicle in 
lieu and business taxes) for FY 1992-93. As of the writing of this report, the 
Controller, the Mayor's Director of Finance and the Budget Analyst are 
discussing the projected revenues and considering possible updates to the 
projections contained in their March 31, 1992 Joint Report. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 3 - File 172-92-9 

Department Real Estate 

Department of City Planning 

Item: Ordinance authorizing the Cirque Du Soleil to use City- 

owned property; and to adopt findings pursuant to City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would authorize Les Productions Du 

Cirque Du Soleil to use City property between Fourth and 
Fifth Streets, south of King Street (Lot 3, Block 3796) which is 
approximately 68,063 square feet, for a circus production 
between June 15, 1992 and August 21, 1992. 

The Department of City Planning has found that the proposed 
use of City property is in conformity with the Master Plan 
and consistent with the eight priority policies of City 
Planning Code Section 101.1. 

Comments: 1. The City would receive a permit fee of $12,300 for use of the 

proposed City property from June 15, 1992 through August 
21, 1992. In addition, the proposed permit would hold the City 
and its employees harmless from any liability, damage, or 
loss arising out of the use of the property. In addition, the 
proposed permit includes an insurance policy for $5 million 
for comprehensive general liability insurance. The 
insurance policy would be paid for by Cirque Du Soleil. 

2. According to Mr. Larry Ritter of the Real Estate 
Department, the City property which the proposed ordinance 
would apply to is located within the Mission Bay project area. 
The City property, which is vacant land, is located on 
Assessor's Lot 3, Block 3796. In addition to the approximate 
68,063 square feet which the City would authorize, Catellus, 
the developer of the Mission Bay project area, is also 
authorizing approximately 130,000 square feet for the Cirque 
Du Soleil to be used for parking. Mr. Ritter reports that the 
Cirque Du Soleil would not delay the development of the 
Mission Bay project area. 

3. Mr. Ritter reports that in previous years, the Cirque Du 
Soleil held performances at the same location in the Mission 
Bay project area, however, Catellus previously owned the 
property. This property was transferred to the City under 
various land transfer agreements provided for in the Mission 
Bay Development Agreement, and approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in January, 1992. Therefore, the Cirque Du 
Soleil did not previously request authorization to use City 
property. 

BOARD OF SIJPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



4. As noted, the Cirque Du Soleil would pay the City $12,300 
for the use of the property, which is approximately 18 cents 
per square foot for the 68,063 square feet of City property, 
amortized from June 15, 1992 through August 21, 1992. 
According to Mr. Ritter, the permit fees which the City would 
receive represents the fair market value for the use of the 
property. Mr. Ritter reports that for existing parking 
facilities in the Mission Bay project area, which Catellus 
owns, Catellus would receive approximately 10 cents per 
square foot. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 4 - File 128-92-1 

Note: This item was transferred from the Special City Services Committee 
meeting on April 28, 1992, because it was determined to have fiscal impact, 
and continued from the May 6, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend Part II, Chapter 5 (Health Code) 
of the San Francisco Municipal Code by repealing Article 21 and adding new 
Article 21 to (a) conform hazardous materials regulations to Federal and State 
laws regulating underground storage tanks and the handling of hazardous 
materials by business establishments, (b) impose additional stricter local 
requirements in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 
25299.2 and 25500, and (c) incorporate by reference Article 11.9 of Chapter 6.5, 
Chapter 6.7, Chapter 6.75, and Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of California Health 
and Safety Code, Section 1910.1200 of Title 29, Appendix A of Part 355 of Title 40, 
Section 370.2 of Title 40, and Section 72.3 of Title 42 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations; and Section 12000 of Title 22 of the Code of California Regulations. 

2. According to Ms. Sue Cone of the Department of Public Health (DPH), 
existing City regulations require the DPH to issue a permit to any business that 
stores hazardous materials. In order to be permitted, a business must submit an 
application, including an inventory of all hazardous materials stored by the 
business, and be inspected by the DPH's Hazardous Materials Division. Yearly 
follow-up inspections are also required. Within the Hazardous Materials Division, 
inventories of hazardous materials must be classified and entered into a database. 
Ms. Cone advises that classification of hazardous materials is complicated 
because four to five pages of technical data must be reviewed and evaluated for 
each inventoried material in order to determine its hazard classification. 

3. Ms. Cone advises that an estimated 10,000 San Francisco businesses 
store hazardous materials. Because the permitting process is difficult and time 
consuming, and because the DPH Hazardous Materials Division does not have 
sufficient resources to carry out the permit process for these 10,000 businesses, 
only 500 businesses are permitted. Ms. Cone reports that several hundred 
unprocessed applications have been submitted. Those businesses whose 
applications are pending, and those that have never submitted applications, Ms. 
Cone advises, are storing hazardous materials without any oversight. 

4. The proposed ordinance would reorganize the hazardous materials 
oversight process so that all businesses storing hazardous materials would be 
required to register rather than be permitted. The proposed biennial registration 
process would be simpler than the current permit process. To register, a business 
would pay a fee, complete a registration form listing the type of hazardous 
chemicals it stores, and develop a facility emergency response and training plan. 
Businesses would be required to demarcate any acutely hazardous materials 
which they store, as established in the State Health and Safety Code. Those 
businesses that do not store acutely hazardous materials would be inspected every 
three years rather than yearly. Businesses that store less than 55 gallons of 
hazardous liquids, 200 cubic feet of compressed gas, or 500 pounds of hazardous 
solids would not be required to register, Mr. Tsutsui reports. Thus, businesses 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

that store small quantities of hazardous materials, such as doctors' and dentists' 
offices with small quantities of mercury, would be exempt from registering. 
Compressed gas, whether it is toxic or not, is considered to be a safety hazard 
since such gas can become a powerful projectile when hot, Mr. Tsutsui advises. 

Currently, most businesses have not received permits because of the limited 
resources of the Hazardous Materials Division, Ms. Tsutsui advises. Such 
businesses are therefore not in compliance with the law, which requires 
businesses storing hazardous materials to be permitted. The proposed ordinance 
would replace the requirement that each San Francisco business storing 
hazardous materials be permitted with the requirement that each business 
storing hazardous materials be registered. Those businesses that have avoided 
paying the permit fee in the past would be required to pay the registration fees. 

The more rigorous permit process would be restricted to those estimated 200 
to 500 businesses storing acutely hazardous materials. Such businesses would 
follow the registration process, including paying the registration- fee and 
reporting that they store acutely hazardous materials. Businesses that report 
storing acutely hazardous materials would then be inspected, and their 
registration fee would be applied to the permit fee. 

According to Mr. Tsutsui, currently, to be permitted, a business storing any 
type of hazardous material pays a $300 initial filing fee the first year of permitting, 
and a $100 filing fee each ensuing year, plus a $75 to $2,100 permit fee, based on 
the amount and type of hazardous materials a business stores. Under the 
proposed ordinance, a business storing acutely hazardous materials would pay 
$285 to $4,025 annually for a permit (based on standards defined by Federal law), 
with no filing fee. Thus, businesses storing acutely hazardous materials might 
pay double their current fee under the proposed ordinance. However, Mr. Tsutsui 
advises that a typical small or medium sized business is likely to pay 
approximately the same amount under the proposed ordinance as under the 
current ordinance because of the structure of the fee schedule. For example, 
under the current ordinance, a medium-sized plate manufacturer which stores 
sodium cyanide might pay $1,050 annually for a permit plus $300 the first year 
and $100 thereafter in filing fees. Under the proposed ordinance, the same 
business would pay a $1,135 annual permit fee and no filing fee, or $215 less the 
first year and $15 less for ensuing years. 

Mr. Tsutsui reports that under the proposed ordinance, only businesses 
that store acutely hazardous materials, which are more expensive to process, 
would pay the permit fees. Businesses that do not store acutely hazardous 
materials would be legally obligated to pay only a registration fee, which is less 
than the current permit and filing fees that they are legally obligated to pay. (The 
processing fee for registration would be $340 biennially, plus a biennial "quantity 
fee" of $34 to $1,530, depending on the volume of hazardous materials a business 
stores, Mr. Tsutsui advises. For more information regarding permit and 
registration fees, see Comments 9, 10 and 11.) 

5. According to Mr. Tsutsui, the proposed registration process would 
require fewer Hazardous Materials Division resources per business, and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6^ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

therefore allow the Division to process more businesses, because (1) inspections 
for businesses that do not store hazardous materials could be done every three 
years rather than every year; and (2) hazard classification of business inventories 
would be required for considerably fewer businesses. 

6. Ms. Cone reports that neither State nor Federal law requires that 
businesses storing hazardous materials be permitted and inspected yearly. 
Rather, State law requires that, at a minimum, such businesses submit specific 
information and be inspected every three years, Ms. Cone advises. These 
requirements are similar to the proposed registration process, so that the 
proposed registration process would be in conformance with Federal and State 
laws. 

7. The proposed ordinance would continue to incorporate an ordinance 
approved by the Board of Supervisors in May of 1991 (File Number 118-91-2), which 
requires that some substances be disclosed which are not required to be disclosed 
under State or Federal law, and that hazardous materials reduction-plans be 
developed. 

8. An estimated 10,000 businesses store hazardous materials and would 
therefore need to register. The Hazardous Materials Division would anticipate 
registering 1,500 new businesses each year for the first six years of the program, 
and 1,000 new businesses the seventh year. Beginning the third year, businesses 
that are already registered would renew their registration every two years. Thus, 
after seven years, the 10,000 businesses storing hazardous materials would all be 
registered. The anticipated registration pattern from 1992-93 through 1998-99, or 
seven years, is as follows: 















Cumulative 




New 






First 


Yearly 


Total of New 


Fiscal Year 


Registrations 


Reregistrat 


iong 


Registered 


Total 


Registrations 


1992-93 


1,500 







not applicable 


1,500 


1^00 


1993-94 


1,500 







not applicable 


1,500 


3,000 


1994-95 


1,500 


1,500 




1991-92 


3,000 


4,500 


1995-96 


1,500 


1,500 




1992-93 


3,000 


6,000 


1996-97 


1,500 


3,000 


1992-93; 1994-95 


4500 


7,500 


1997-98 


1,500 


3,000 


1993-94; 1995-96 


4,500 


9,000 


1998-99 


1,000 


4,500 


1992-93; 1994-95; 


5,500 


10,000 










1996-97 







9. The processing fee for registration would be $340 biennially, plus a 
biennial "quantity fee" of $34 to $1,530, depending on the volume of hazardous 
materials a business stores, Mr. Tsutsui advises. The Division anticipates that 
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



fc 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

most businesses would pay biennial quantity fees between $34 and $510. Thus, 
most businesses would pay from $374 to $850 every two years. Mr. Tsutsui advises 
that the fee schedule was determined based on the number of staff hours and 
other resources required for the registration process. A comparison with 19 
California counties, including nine Bay Area counties, indicates that the 
proposed fees are among the lowest fees charged by most of the 19 counties. Mr. 
Tsutsui reports that despite the lower fees, the DPH's Hazardous Materials 
Division would provide services that many of the 19 California counties do not 
provide, such as site inspections and consultations regarding compliance with 
various other laws and regulations. 

10. Underground tanks store hazardous materials, particularly petrol, in 
buried metal or fiberglass tanks. Such tanks can corrode over time and leak 
hazardous materials into the groundwater. However, State and Federal law does 
not require that oversight of underground tanks be included as part of hazardous 
material disclosure requirements. The proposed ordinance would incorporate 
underground tanks as part of the registration process. Rather than paying a fee 
based on the quantity of materials stored, as other businesses would, a biennial 
registration fee of $170 per site would be charged for underground tanks in 
addition to the $340 processing fee. In addition, underground tanks would be 
required to obtain an operating permit each year, at a cost of $85 per tank. If a 
business removed or modified its underground storage tank, it would require a 
modification permit, at a cost of $363. 

The original title of the proposed ordinance read "... regulating 
underground storage tanks and the handling of hazardous materials by business 
establishments." Ms. Cone reports that underground storage tanks are a subset of 
hazardous materials. Therefore, the title of the proposed ordinance was amended 
by the City Services Committee at its April 28, 1992 Special City Services 
Committee meeting to read "... regulating the handling of hazardous materials, 
including underground storage tanks, by business establishments." 

11. The Hazardous Materials Division currently anticipates that revenues 
generated by the proposed program would entirely support the Hazardous 
Materials Division, and may generate revenues beyond current costs in future 
years. If revenues exceeded costs, Division staff would decide whether fees should 
be reduced or services increased, Mr. Tsutsui advises. The Hazardous Materials 
Division anticipates revenue from businesses equaling $1.2 million from the 
proposed registration program for Fiscal Year 1992-93, as follows: 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Average 






Anticipated 




Activity Amount 






Number 


T&tal 


Registration Processing Fee* $340 






1^500 


$510,000 


Registration Quantity Fee* 306 






1,225 


374,850 


Registration Fee for Underground Tanks* 170 






275 


46,750 


Underground Tank Operating Permit 85 


(per tank) 


1,200 


102,000 


Underground Tank Modification Permit 363 






156 


56,628 


Inspections 85 


(per 


hour) 


400 


34,000 


Permits 550 






100 


55,000 


Permit Renewals 600 






50 


30.000 



TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUE 



$1,209,228 



*Per business biennial fees. However, at least 1,500 businesses are anticipated to register each 
year, so that total revenues are anticipated to be at least $1,209,228 annually. 

In addition, the Hazardous Materials Division may generate revenues from 
consulting fees with private environmental firms, through penalty assessments 
for non-compliance, through work orders from other City departments, and 
through income from UCSF if UCSF requests a dedicated Hazardous Materials 
Division staff member to oversee the registration and permitting of its facilities. 

The $1.2 million anticipated revenues would cover all of the operating 
expenses for the Hazardous Materials Division for 1992-93. The current budget for 
the Hazardous Materials Division is approximately $1,104 million. The proposed 
program would generate approximately the same revenues in Fiscal Year 1993- 
94. During the third year of the program, when the total number of businesses 
registering exceeds the 1,500 anticipated for 1992-93 and 1993-94, revenues 
generated by the program could exceed the operating expenses of the Hazardous 
Materials Division. 

12. As noted above, if program revenues exceed the costs for operating the 
Hazardous Materials Division, Mr. Tsutsui advises that either registration fees 
would be reduced or services would be increased. According to Mr. Tsutsui, at 
current budgeted staff levels, the Hazardous Materials Division would most likely 
be unable to implement fully the proposed ordinance, which requires that 
registered businesses be inspected every three years, per State requirements. If 
the proposed registration program increases Hazardous Materials Division's 
revenue above their currently budgeted costs, resources would probably be used 
for inspections, Mr. Tsutsui advises. However, based on the anticipated number of 
annual registrations, the Budget Analyst estimates that revenues in the third and 
fourth years would be approximately $2,418,456, double the $1.2 million currently 
included in the DPH's budget for the Hazardous Materials Division, and would 
increase every other year until the seventh year, when the total revenues are 
projected to be $8,061,520, or approximately 6.7 times the amount currently 
included in the DPH's proposed 1992-93 budget for the Hazardous Materials 
Division. Although any increase in the Hazardous Materials Division's annual 
budget would require authorization by the Board of Supervisors as part of the 
annual budget hearings, the proposed ordinance would not require that the 
Hazardous Materials Division receive authorization from the Board of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Supervisors before expanding its program or reducing its fees. Therefore, the 
proposed ordinance should be amended to require that the Hazardous Materials 
Division report back to the Board of Supervisors in three years regarding the 
program and require separate authorization from the Board of Supervisors before 
expanding its program or reducing its registration fees. 

13. Mr. Tsutsui advises that the proposed registration program would be 
evaluated by the Hazardous Materials Division on a quarterly basis. The 
evaluation would review the registration program's progress based on work plans 
and revenue projections. Specifically, the Division would review the number of 
permits issued, the number of completed registrations, and the revenue from 
enforcement, permitting, and registration. According to Ms. Cone, the Division is 
currently computerizing its permit process using the City-wide standard Oracle 
database management program. The proposed registration program would use 
the same computer system, Ms. Cone advises. Ms. Cone further advises that the 
Hazardous Materials Division anticipates that the quarterly evaluation would be 
fairly simple with the use of the Oracle database. If revenues at the time of these 
quarterly evaluations do not meet projections, the Hazardous Materials Division 
staff, in conjunction with the Director of the Bureau of Toxics, contingent upon 
approval by DPH administration, would either increase recruitment of businesses 
that need to register, or divert resources, for example, from inspections, into more 
significant revenue generating activities as necessary. 

14. In summary, the reasons that the Hazardous Materials Division is 
proposing to replace the existing process where every business storing hazardous 
materials would need to be permitted, with a program where every business 
storing hazardous materials would need to register and only those storing acutely 
hazardous materials would need to be permitted, are as follows: (1) the Hazardous 
Materials Division lacks sufficient staff resources to inspect and classify 
hazardous materials to issue permits to the estimated 10,000 businesses in San 
Francisco storing hazardous materials; (2) the proposed registration program 
would provide equity in the levels of business compliance, and the volume of 
information would enable the Hazardous Materials Division to enhance current 
ranking systems and effectively prioritize inspection and permitting operations 
based on relative risk; (3) registration would be more consistent with State and 
Federal law, since it would provide some oversight for all businesses storing 
hazardous materials, rather than close oversight for 500 such businesses and 
little or no oversight for the remaining businesses; (4) the proposed registration 
program would bring in sufficient revenues to cover the entire budget for the 
Hazardous Materials Division on an on-going basis. In addition, the proposed 
registration program would allow the Hazardous Materials Division to support 
public disclosure and emergency response, because it would provide inventories 
and classifications of all hazardous materials stored by businesses in San 
Francisco. The proposed registration program would be monitored quarterly, 
based on work plans and revenue projections, to evaluate its progress. 

15. On April 28, 1992, the City Services Committee recommended approval 
of the proposed ordinance. As noted above, this ordinance was transferred to the 
Finance Committee as it was determined to have a fiscal impact on the City. 

BOARD OF ST JPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Recommendations 

The proposed ordinance should be amended to require that the Hazardous 
Materials Division report back to the Board of Supervisors in three years 
regarding the program and require separate authorization from the Board of 
Supervisors before expanding its program or reducing its registration fees. 

Approval of the proposed ordinance, as amended, is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Items 5 and 6 - Files 166-92-2 and 166-92-3 

Department Tax Collector 

Items: Resolution authorizing the Tax Collector to charge a $20 fee to 

defray the cost of mailing copies of the list containing all tax 
defaulted real estate parcels which are included in the 
impending sale of tax defaulted real estate (File 166-92-2). 

Resolution authorizing the Tax Collector to sell at public 
auction certain parcels of tax-defaulted real property (File 
166-92-3). 

Description: According to State law, all real property must be publicly 

auctioned within two years after five years of a tax default. In 
other words, if a property owner does not pay his or her 
property taxes for one year, for example, 1985, he or she is 
considered to be in tax default. The property owner then has 
five years, in our example, from 1986 to 1991, during which 
he or she may repay the defaulted tax amount. If the amount 
is not repaid in total within the five year deadline, the 
property must be sold by the City at public auction within two 
years, or by 1993 in our example. In order to conduct such an 
auction, the Tax Collector must receive authorization from 
the Board of Supervisors and the State Controller's Office, 
Mr. Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector advises. The 
proposed resolution (File 166-92-3) would authorize the Tax 
Collector to sell certain tax-defaulted properties. 

As part of the process of conducting a public auction of tax- 
defaulted properties, the Tax Collector mails copies of the list 
containing all tax-defaulted real estate parcels to be 
auctioned to any interested party who requests it. According 
to the Tax Collector, the process of preparing, copying and 
mailing these lists has a cost of approximately $20 per list. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution would authorize the Tax 
Collector to recover costs by charging a $20 fee for each list 
mailed (File 166-92-2). 

Comments: 1. Mr. Bill Gatt of the Tax Collector's Office advises that 

approximately 119 properties would be offered at the proposed 
auction. According to Mr. Sullivan, the last public auction of 
tax-defaulted improved property occurred in 1988. 

2. The proposed auction would sell improved property or 
vacant lots, Mr. Sullivan reports. Mr. Sullivan further 
reports that tax-defaulted property of non-buildable strips of 
land are offered to contiguous property owners in a Seal Bid 
Auction. Mr. Sullivan advises that such an auction will take 
place June 26, 1992. According to Mr. Sullivan, property that 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

is buildable, improved, or has no contiguous property owners 
must be offered in a public auction such as the proposed 
public auction. 

3. Mr. Sullivan advises that the minimum required bid for 
the proposed public auction would be 25 percent of the market 
value of the property. Each property must have been 
appraised within the past year, Mr. Sullivan reports. Mr. 
Gatt advises that the amount of the tax default and 
reimbursement for administrative costs would be credited to 
the Tax Collector upon sale of the property. Any remaining 
revenues from the sale would revert to the owner of the 
property, or to other parties of interest if, for example, there 
is a lien on the property (File 166-92-3). 

4. According to Mr. Gatt, after the Board of Supervisors has 
approved the proposed resolution, first, the State Controller's 
Office would approve the proposed auction, second, the list of 
properties would be distributed to interested parties while at 
the same time the auction would be advertised once a week 
for three consecutive weeks in a publication generally 
available, and finally, the auction would be held. Mr. Gatt 
anticipates that the auction would take place two months 
after approval by the Board of Supervisors (File 166-92-3). 

5. Mr. Gatt estimates that no more than 300 interested parties 
are anticipated to request a list of properties to be included in 
the auction. Therefore, the maximum amount of estimated 
costs to be recovered by charging $20 per list mailed would be 
$6,000. The Tax Collector advises that various California 
counties charge from $10 to $100 for providing such lists (File 
166-92-2). 

6. Mr. Gatt advises that the Tax Collector is required to notify 
property owners with tax defaults by certified mail that they 
are required to pay property taxes or their property will be 
sold at auction. Also, a representative of the Tax Collector is 
required to visit the property in person before a sale can go 
forward, Mr. Gatt reports. Property owners have the option to 
repay the tax default until the close of business on the day 
prior to the proposed auction (File 166-92-3). 

7. A copy of the list of properties to be auctioned is in the file. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolutions (Files 166-92-2 and 166-92- 
3). 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Items 7 and 8 - Files 97-92-28 and 97-92-29 

1. The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-28) would amend Sections 16.904, 
16.905 and 16.93 of the San Francisco Administrative Code, voluntary employee 
benefits, cafeteria plan benefits and organizations for which deductions can be 
made to reflect changes made in implementing an employer-paid dental 
program. 

2. The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-29) would amend Section 16.157 of the 
Administrative Code to approve the City's FY 1992-93 Health Service System plans 
and rates of contribution as adopted by the Health Service Board to be paid by the 
members of the system. The members of the system are comprised of employees, 
retirees, and the surviving spouses of employees and retirees of the City and 
County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified School District and the 
Community College District. 

3. The Board of Supervisors previously adopted a resolution setting the 
City's contribution to the Health Service Fund for FY 1992-93 at $163.27 per month 
for each member. The City's contribution was established in accordance with 
Charter Sections 8.423 and 8.428, which set the average contribution rate based on 
a survey of the ten most populous counties in California. The City's contribution of 
$163.27 per month ($1,959.24 per year) represents an increase of 54# per month, or 
less than one percent over the FY 1991-92 rate of $162.73 per month ($1,952.76 per 
year). 

4. Once the City's contribution is established, member contributions are 
calculated by the Health Service System actuary, Rael and Letson, Consulting 
Actuaries in order to ensure that contributions from all sources will be adequate 
to support anticipated claims for the upcoming fiscal year. The proposed 
ordinance would establish member contribution rates for FY 1992-93 pursuant to 
Charter Sections 8.421 and 8.422. Charter Sections 8.421 and 8.422 require 
approval by three-fourths of the members of the Board of Supervisors after the 
Board has secured an actuarial report of the costs and effects of any proposed 
change in the benefits of the Health Service System or rates of contribution. 
Contribution rates vary according to: (1) whether or not a member is an active 
employee, retired employee, or surviving spouse; (2) whether or not that 
individual has Medicare coverage; and (3) which of the City's six health plans 
that individual elects to join. The actuarial report and details of the member 
contribution rates are contained in the Clerk's file. 

5. Six plans will be offered in the 1992-93 fiscal year. The plans are: 

•City Health Plan* 

•Kaiser Foundation 

•Bridge way 

•Aetna Health Plans of Northern California 

(formerly Bay Pacific) 

•Qual-Med California (formerly Heals) 

•Foundation Health Plan 

* Administered by the Health Service System. 

BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

6. The total revenue generated from employer and member contributions 
for the health plans in 1992-93 is estimated to be $142.6 million. A summary of the 
revenue sources is as follows: 

Percent 
Amount ofTotal 

(Millions) Contributions 

City and County Contribution 

- Current Employees 

- Retired Employees and Surviving Spouses 

School District/Community College District 
Contribution 

- Current Employees 

- Retired Employees and Surviving Spouses 

Total Employer Contributions 
Employee Contributions 
Total Contributions 

7. Of the total estimated employer contributions of $101.5 million, 
approximately $49,329,000, or approximately 48.6 percent, would be contributed 
from the City's General Fund. The remaining $52.17 million of employer 
contributions would be paid from the City's Special Funds (e.g., Airport, Port, 
Water Department and Hetch Hetchy) and from School District and Community 
College District revenue sources. 

8. The employee contribution rates for health benefits for fiscal year 1992-93 
generally reflect an increase in employee contribution costs. According to the 
Health Service System, this is because the increase in employer contributions of 
540 per employee per month, which was established based on a survey of average 
contribution rates for the ten most populous counties in California, is very slight. 
Therefore, increased medical costs must be supported by increased employee 
contributions and decreased benefits in some health plans. The cost changes to 
employees range from a reduction of $15.73 per month ($188.76 annually) to an 
increase of $51.61 per month ($619.32 annually). A comparison of the FY 1991-92 
monthly rates for active and retired City employees with the proposed FY 1992-93 
rates adopted by the Health Service Board and the monthly difference in costs are 
as follows: 



$56.9 
20.7 


39.9 
14.5 


16.5 

JL4 


11.6 
_k2 


$ 101.5 


71.2 


41.1 


28.8 


$142.6 


100.0 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Citv Health Plan 

Single Employee 

Employee plus one dependent 

Employee plus two dependents 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Bridgewav Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Aetna Health Plans of California 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Qual-Med California 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Foundation Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 



1991-92 

Monthly 

Rates 


1992-93 

Monthly 

Rates 


Monthly 
Difference 


$38.06 
172.03 
259.09 


$38.00 
200.00 
305.00 


$ (.06) 
27.97 
45.91 



158.89 
234.10 


10.18 
174.17 
285.71 


10.18 
15.28 
51.61 



152.98 
224.04 


9.61 
161.60 
271.56 


9.61 

8.62 

47.52 



174.86 
239.92 


10.53 
173.88 
268.42 


10.53 
(.98) 
28.50 



176.63 
236.38 


5.00 
160.90 
245.04 


5.00 

(15.73) 

8.66 



163.05 
246.28 


7.35 
162.07 
274.78 


7.35 
(.98) 
28.50 



Decreased benefits include, but are not limited to, an increase in the annual 
deductible for the City Health Plan from $175 to $250, an increase from no charge 
to $5 for physicians' visits for the Bridgeway Plan, and an increase from no 
charge to $5 for physicians' visits and an increase in prescription drugs from $3 to 
$5 in the Kaiser Plan. For more information on benefit changes, see attached. 

9. The total estimated cost of $142.6 million for the various health plans for 
FY 1992-93 includes the employer and employee contributions and represents an 
average increase of approximately 9 percent over the FY 1991-92 costs of $130.8 
million. The projected total premium contributions (in millions) based on current 
plan membership for the six health plans (assumes all current members 
continue to subscribe to the same health plans in 1992-93) are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



75 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



City Health Plan 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 

Bridgeway Health Plan 

Aetna Health Plans of California 

Qual-Med California 

Foundation Health Plan 

Total 



1991-92 


1992-93 




Projected 


Projected 


Percentage 


Premiums 


Premiums 


Increase 


$38.6 


$46.8 


21.2 


59.8 


62.3 


4.2 


17.7 


18.6 


5.1 


i 9.7 


10.1 


4.1 


4.8 


4.6 


(4.2) 


,2 


,2 


— 



$130.8 



$142.6 



9.0 



10. In November 1991, the voters approved a measure (Proposition B) which 
provides employer- supported dental care benefits to City employees. Currently, 
most City employees may participate only in employee-paid dental plans. Mr. 
Randall Smith of the Health Service System advises that previously only the 
following City, Unified School District (SFUSD), and Community College District 
(SFCCD) employees received employer-paid dental benefits: (a) all permanent 
classified and almost all certificated teachers at SFUSD and SFCCD; (b) all 
nurses; and (c) all full-time transit operators employed by the Municipal Railway. 
As a result of Proposition B, Mr. Smith advises, at least 19,000 additional 
employees are anticipated to be eligible for employer-supported dental care 
benefits. 

Mr. Smith reports that two types of dental plans are to be made available to 
employees. The first type is an indemnity plan, where employees may select any 
dentist and the dentist will be paid for the dental services based on a set schedule 
of benefits. Employees under this plan are responsible for a portion of their dental 
care, such as 50 percent for dentures or 20 percent for fillings. The second type is 
a pre-paid plan, where employees must select from a limited number of dentists 
enrolled in the plan. Under the pre-paid plan, employees are responsible for few 
or no co-payments for their dental work. 

According to Mr. Smith, the Employee Relations Division negotiated with 
the unions regarding the implementation of Proposition B. ERD and the unions 
agreed to guarantee employees an indemnity dental plan for which the City would 
pay up to $65 per month per employee. This $65 per month would be a composite 
payment, in other words, the amount would be the same regardless of whether or 
not an employee had dependents. 

Mr. Smith advises that the Health Service Board was given responsibility 
for selecting a vendor that would provide an indemnity plan at a composite 
amount of $65 per month per employee. The Health Service Board selected Delta 
Dental as the vendor, based on a Request for Proposals. According to Mr. Smith, 
the Health System has reserved the right to pay Delta Dental either on a composite 
basis, at $65 per month per employee regardless of the number of dependents, or 
on a three-tiered basis. Delta Dental's three-tiered rates are as follows: 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

1992-93 
Monthly 

Rates 

Citv Health Plan 

Single Employee $29.84 

Employee plus one dependent 55.05 

Employee plus two dependents 88.51 

The Health Service System is currently beginning an open enrollment 
period for dental benefits. Mr. Smith reports that based on the number of 
employees and dependents who enroll in the various programs, the Health 
Service System will select the least costly method of payment for the City. 

In addition to the indemnity plan, the Health Service System has elected to 
offer employees two pre-paid plans, DentiCare Dental Plan and Safeguard Dental 
Plan. The rates for DentiCare Dental Plan and Safeguard Dental Plan are as 
follows: 

DentiCare Dental Plan 

Single Employee $ 16.25 

Employee plus one dependent 21.95 

Employee plus two dependents 32.50 

Safeguard Dental Plan 

Single Employee 13.74 

Employee plus one dependent 21.20 

Employee plus two dependents 31.98 

These two pre-paid programs are less than half the price of the indemnity 
program through Delta Dental. Thus, for every employee who participates in one 
of these programs, the City's costs would be reduced. Although employees who 
select a pre-paid program would be restricted to those dentists enrolled in the 
program, employees who select the pre-paid program would be required to pay 
little or no portion of their dental care costs, as they would under Delta Dental. 

Mr. Smith reports that the Health Service System anticipates that nearly 
every employee eligible to receive dental care benefits will enroll in the program. 
The total cost to the City of providing these dental plans will be dependent on the 
number of employees who elect to enroll in each plan, and on the number of 
dependents of those employees. However, the Budget Analyst estimates, based on 
a minimum of 19,000 newly eligible employees, that the cost would most likely 
range from a minimum of $12,859,200 annually, based on 20 percent of 19,000 
employees enrolling in pre-paid plans at a cost of $22 per month per employee 
with one dependent ($1,003,200 per year) and 80 percent of 19,000 employees 
enrolling in the indemnity program at a maximum of $65 per month ($11,856,000), 
to a maximum of $14,820,000 annually, if 19,000 employees become eligible and 
each employee elects to enroll in the indemnity plan at a cost of $65 per employee 
per month for twelve months. The Controller advises that funds for the dental 
plan have been included in the Mayor's recommended FY 1992-93 budget. 

BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

11. The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-28) would simplify Sections 16.904, 
16.905 and 16.93 of the Administrative Code by removing the specific names of 
health care plans offered by the City and replacing those specific names with 
generic phrases. For example, Section 16.904 would be amended to remove the 
words "Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Company Indemnity Dental Plan, 
DentiCare Prepaid Dental Plan and Colonial Life and Accident Insurance 
Company Disability Plan, and Dependent Care Assistance Program to be 
administered by Benefit America, Inc.," with the words "those plans which have 
been adopted by the Health Service Board and approved by the Board of 
Supervisors." If the proposed ordinance is approved, Mr. Smith advises, the 
Health Service System would not be required to amend those sections of the 
Administrative Code each time a plan was added, deleted or changed. Instead, 
only Section 16.157 of the Administrative Code would need to be amended, which 
relates to the Health Service System plans and actual rates of contribution. The 
proposed ordinance would not diminish the oversight of either the Board of 
Supervisors or the Health Service Board, according to Mr. Smith. These changes 
are proposed pursuant to the recommendations of the City Attorney, Mr. Smith 
reports. 

The proposed ordinance (File 97-92-28) would also update the 
Administrative Code to reflect the changes in the dental benefit program 
pursuant to Proposition B. No changes would be made in regard to the cafeteria 
plan, which has been in effect since December 1988 and allows employees to take 
pre-tax deductions for a disability program, employee health care contributions, 
child and elder care. The cafeteria plan incurs no costs to the City, and in fact 
saves the City monies which would be required for social security matching 
dollars. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinances. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

78 



Attachment 1 
Page 1 of 3 

HEALTH PLAN 
RATE AND BENEFIT CHANGES 

CITY HEALTH PLAN 

Contribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 21 .2%, which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $38.6 million currently to $46.8 million in 
1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

Preferred Provider Plan Benefit Changes 
No Benefit Changes. 

Standard Plan Benefit Changes 

All covered services paid at 70% of usual and reasonable charges after a $250 
deductible is satisfied. (Current coverage is at 80% with a $175 deductible). 

Exceptions to above coverage: 

Inpatient hospital bills incurred in a hospital outside the Preferred Provider service 
area and by a member residing outside the PPO service area would be paid at 80%. 

Inpatient hospital bills incurred in a hospital within the PPO service area would be 
paid at 50% with the exception of emergency admissions to be paid at 80%. The 
benefit for emergency admission is reduced to 50% coverage once the patient's 
condition has stabilized and it is medically determined that a transfer to a contract 
Preferred Provider Hospital can be made. 

Special Surgery benefit will be covered at 70% of usual and customary charge 
(currently covered at 100%). 

* Dental services related to an injury or treatment/removal of tumors of the gums are 
covered at 70% (This is a reduction in covered dental services and benefit 
copayment). 

Vision examination and lense replacement every 24 months (currently every 12 
months). 

Acupuncture benefit eliminated. 



79 



Attachment 1 
Page 2 of 3 



KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 



Contribution Rates 



The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 0.8% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from approximately $ 59.8 million currently to 
$60.3 million in 1992-93. 

eroposea benefit Chang es 

Physician visit will cost $5 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

Prescription drugs will cost $5 per prescription up to a 34-day supply (currently $3 per 
prescription). 

Mental health visits will cost $20 per visit when prescribed by a Plan physician 
[.. . illy there is no charge for maximum of 20 visits). 

Allergy tests and injection visits will cost $3 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

BRIDGEWAY HEALTH PLAN 

Contribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 5.1% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from approximately $17.7 million to $18.6 
million for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

Network Plan 

No Benefit Changes 
Hospital Based Plan 

Physician visits will cost $5 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

Physical Therapy visit will cost $15 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

AETNA HEALTH PLANS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Formerly Bay Pacific Health Plan 

C ontribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 4.1% which based on current 
momhorchin will increase annual premiums from $9.7 million to approximately $10.1 
million for 1992-93. 

nopvocJ Benefit Changes 

None 

80 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 3 



QUAL-MED CALIFORNIA 

Formerly Heals Health Plan 



Contribution Rates 






The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately (4.2)% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $4.8 million to approximately $4.6 million 
for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

None. 

FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 

C-..wluuiion Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately -- % which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $.2 to $.2 for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

None. 

DENTAL PLANS 

The Colonial Life Dental Plan will no longer be offered effective July 1 , 1992. 

All retired and members will have an option of three dental plans: 

Delta Dental Plan - This is a fee-for-service dental plan where you may select the 
dentist of your choice to provide services. 

DentiCare Dental Plan - This is a closed panel prepaid dental plan providing a 
comprehensive set of benefits. You must select a dentist from those dentists participating 
in the plan. 

Safeguard Dental Plan - This is also a closed panel prepaid dental plan providing a 
comprehensive set of benefits. You must select a dentist from those dentists participating 
in the plan. 

The benefits and premium costs of each plan are enclosed. 

DISABILITY PLAN 

A hospital income protection rider will be offered for the first time. 



81 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 9 -File 171-92-2 

This item is a hearing to consider San Francisco's contribution to the Fiscal 
Year 1992-93 Peninsula Commute (CalTrain) Service Operating Budget. 

In December, 1991, the Economic and Social Policy Committee approved a 
resolution to authorize the execution of a real property ownership agreement 
between the members of the Joint Powers Board (JPB) to provide for an orderly 
system of management, development and eventual disposition of the property, 
consisting of the 52-mile corridor between San Francisco and San Jose, and for 
appropriate rights and protections relative to SamTrans' advance of funds for the 
purchase of the property (File 171-91-20). The JPB consists of members from the 
City and County of San Francisco, the San Mateo County Transit District 
(SamTrans) and the Santa Clara County Transit District. 

On December 20, 1990, the JPB executed a Letter of Intent with the Southern 
Pacific Transportation Company for the purchase of the Peninsula Commute 
Right-of-Way from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, consisting of an 
approximately 52-mile corridor between 4th and Townsend Streets in San 
Francisco and Lick Junction in San Jose. The purpose of purchasing the right-of- 
way is to enable the three counties, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, to 
jointly operate the peninsula commute service (CalTrain). 

The same resolution (File 171-91-20) provided that SamTrans would have 
the option of taking title to the portions of the right-of-way located in San Francisco 
or Santa Clara Counties if these counties do not provide their share of the right-of- 
way purchase price, and recognized, but did not require, that San Francisco 
intends to contribute surplus land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities 
Commission's (PUC) Water Department which is located in San Mateo County as 
its approximate $10 million share towards the purchase of the right-of-way. 

Ms. Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Director of the San Francisco County 
Transportation Authority, advises that the understanding between the counties 
belonging to the JPB is that if the value of the land in San Mateo exceeds $10 
million, San Francisco would have the option of either receiving the difference in 
cash, or using the funds for San Francisco's share of operating costs in future 
fiscal years. 

Ms. Robin Reitzes of the City Attorney's Office reports that the City is still in 
the process of completing negotiations with SamTrans with regard to the process 
for appraising the 26 parcels of surplus land owned by the Water Department. 
Ms. Reitzes notes that once the negotiations on the appraisal process and 
instructions for appraisers have been completed, SamTrans will issue requests 
for proposals (RFPs) for appraisers, an appraiser acceptable to both parties will be 
selected, and an appraisal of the land will be made. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Mr. Harry Quinn of the Department of Real Estate reports that after the 
appraisal has been made, San Francisco and SamTrans will review the appraisal 
figures, negotiate and attempt to come to an agreement concerning the appraised 
value of the land. Mr. Quinn advises that the City and SamTrans have agreed to 
evenly split the cost of appraising the land and Mr. Bob Mitroff of the PUC reports 
that the City expects its share of appraisal costs will be less than $50,000. Both 
Ms. Reitzes and Mr. Quinn estimate that it may take at least nine months or 
longer to complete the appraisal process. Besides the appraisal process, the City 
will also need to devote time and resources to test the land for any hazardous 
wastes, but at this time it is unclear as to when the hazardous waste testing will 
occur, and what the costs of such testing will be. 

Effective December, 1991, the approximately 52 mile long Peninsula 
Commute Right-of-Way was purchased by the JPB and the portion of the Right-of- 
Way located in San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties belongs to the JPB while 
the portion in San Mateo County belongs jointly to SamTrans and the JPB. This 
arrangement came about in direct proportion to the amount of funding 
contributed by the respective parties. 

Two contractors bid for the opportunity to operate CalTrain, A.T.E. 
Management and Service Company (ATE), and Amtrak. Since the JPB was 
unable to reach an agreement with ATE due to an impasse concerning liability 
insurance, the JPB chose to make the offer instead to Amtrak. Mr. Jim 
Gallagher of SamTrans advises that starting July 1, 1992, Amtrak will be 
operating CalTrain. 

Currently, Caltrans is still responsible for management and daily 
operation of the CalTrain service until Amtrak assumes those duties on July 1, 
1992. Approximately 40 percent of operating costs are recovered through fares, 
leaving a 60 percent deficit. The annual Federal subsidy is deducted from the 60 
percent deficit. Half of the balance after deducting the Federal subsidy is being 
borne by Caltrans up through fiscal year 1992-93, and the other half by the 
Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, based on their respective 
riderships. San Francisco's share is 10.2 percent, San Mateo's share is 51.0 
percent, and Santa Clara's share is 38.8 percent. In addition, administrative 
expenses for the JPB are divided evenly between the three counties (prior to the 
new JPB agreement signed in October, 1991, administrative costs were divided 
between the agencies based on the same percentages as the operating deficit). 

On April 7, 1992, the JPB adopted an amended fiscal year 1992-93 budget, 
making San Francisco's projected share of operating costs $1,299,014 (a 
preliminary budget had allocated operating costs of $1,541,277 to the City), based 
on the assumption that ATE would be operating CalTrain. San Francisco's 
contribution for the operating deficit is about $893,116, and an additional $405,898 
is for administrative expenses. Mr. Gallagher advises that the operating costs 
were lowered (and therefore, San Francisco's allocation of costs was also lowered) 
as a result of the following factors: a fare increase scheduled to take effect in 
September, 1992; the opening of a new station in southern San Jose; new ridership 
scheduled to start after July 1, 1992; and the decision to not fill oversight positions, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

instead retaining consultants to play an oversight role. At the time of this 
writing, Ms. Hynes-Cherin had confirmed with the JPB that both Amtrak's and 
ATE's costs had been very similar, so it will not be necessary for JPB to revise its 
fiscal year 1992-93 budget to take into account the selection of Amtrak as the 
CalTrain operator. 

Ms. Kathleen Kelly of the PUC advises that for fiscal year 1992-93, the City 
has budgeted $950,000 from General Fund monies, all of which would come from 
Muni's budget, as its share of CalTrain's operating costs, and that presently, 
there are enough funds to pay for almost 9 months of the City's current projected 
share of operating costs of $1,299,014. Ms. Kelly notes that the City has two 
options: (1) it can use the credit from its surplus land toward operating costs to 
make up the difference between the $950,000 and the $1,299,014; or (2) it can 
appropriate additional monies from the General Fund to make up the shortfall. 
The shortfall for fiscal year 1992-93 is currently estimated at $349,014 ($1,299,014 
budgeted less $950,000 from Muni's General Fund budget). 

Mr. Mitroff also reports that San Francisco's share of CalTrain's operating 
expenses for fiscal year 1991-92 will exceed the budgeted amount of $950,000 by an 
estimated $727,729 due to the following additional expenses: 

(1) $353,661 for the City's share of the JPB's administrative expenses 
through June 30, 1992 (attributable to costs associated with the development and 
award of CalTrain's operating contract, the Environmental Impact Statement for 
the Downtown San Francisco Extension Project, and the acquisition of the 
Southern Pacific Right-of-Way); 

(2) $266,192 for start-up costs to bring Amtrak on line by July 1, 1992; 

(3) $57,876 to substitute for a Federal Section 9 operating grant, which 
was included in the JPB's 1991-92 budget, but has been delayed due to unresolved 
labor issues; and 

(4) $50,000 to pay the contractor who will conduct the appraisal of the 
San Francisco Water Department's surplus land which was transferred to the 
JPB in lieu of San Francisco's local match for the Right-of-Way acquisition. 

The PUC informed the Mayor's Office on April 1, 1992 of the above-listed 
additional JPB costs which San Francisco is to assume in its fiscal year 1991-92 
budget. The total amount which the City has budgeted for CalTrain in fiscal year 
1991-92 is $950,000. As of the writing of this report, the Mayor's Office has not 
identified funds for these additional costs. 

Mr. Stuart Sunshine, Assistant to the Mayor for Transportation, advises 
that presently, the Mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1992-93 only includes 
$950,000 for the City's share of CalTrain's operating costs and that the Mayor's 
Office hopes that the appraisal process can be completed by the time the $950,000 
has been provided to the JPB, so that some credit for the City can be applied 
against its surplus land. 

BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Ms. Linda Rhine of JPB's Planning Department reports that her office is in 
the process of developing nine year operating budget projections and a capital 
improvement plan for CalTrain (also known as the Short Range Transit Plan), 
which will be completed in July, 1992. Ms. Rhine has provided the following 
preliminary operating cost projections for San Francisco: 





Number of Trains 


Annual Proiected 
Cost to Citv 


FY 1992-93 


60 


$1,299,014 


FY 1993-94 


60 


$2,511,400 


FY 1994-95 


66 


$3,046,600 


FY 1995-96 


66 


$3,204,700 


FY 1996-97 


66 


$3,370,600 


FY 1997-98 


66 


$3,545,000 


FY 1998-99 


66 


$3,728,000 


FY 1999-2000 


66 


$3,920,100 


FY 2000-2001 


66 


$4,121,900 



Ms. Rhine notes that these figures are likely to change when the contract 
with Amtrak is finalized, and as the JPB evaluates its cost and revenue 
assumptions. Ms. Rhine reports that the projections assume that CalTrain will 
operate 66 trains starting July 1, 1994 through the year 2001, and that Cal trans' 
subsidy will cease, starting in fiscal year 1993-94. These projections also assume 
that San Francisco's share will continue to be 10.2% of the JPB share up through 
fiscal year 2000-2001, that there will not be a downtown extension in San Francisco 
and that the Federal subsidy of CalTrain will continue up through 2001. 

The above listed projections show that San Francisco's share of operating 
costs almost doubles after fiscal year 1992-93, due to the fact that the State subsidy 
will cease to subsidize operating costs by 50 percent after fiscal year 1992-93. The 
amended Joint Powers Agreement (approved by the Board, per File 172-91-16) 
requires that these operating costs be subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval 
on an annual basis. In addition, the real property ownership agreement adopted 
by the Board (File 171-91-20) provides that San Francisco could terminate its 
participation in the JPB Agreement at the end of any fiscal year, provided that one 
year's notice is given to the other JPB members. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Items 10. 11. 12 and 13 - Files 142-92-1. 142-92-1.1. 142-92-2 and 142-92-2.1 

Department: Public Utilities Commission, Water Department 



Items: 



Description: 



The four proposed resolutions all relate to the Public Utilities 
Commission's (PUC) proposed revised schedule of rates for 
water supplied to City and suburban retail customers (Items 
10 and 11; Files 142-92-1 and 142-92-1.1); and for water 
supplied to suburban resale customers (Items 12 and 13; 
Files 142-92-2 and 142-92-2.1). 

The proposed legislation provides for an 18% increase in the 
base rate water charge for the City, and the suburban retail 
customers and a 18.6% increase for suburban resale 
customers. The Water Department also proposes to end the 
water purchase surcharge of $0.18 per billing unit (one unit 
equals 748 gallons) which was approved for 1991-92 to pay for 
the cost of purchasing water from the State and the Placer 
County Water Agency. Therefore, according to the Water 
Department, because the proposed increase would be made at 
the same time the surcharge is eliminated, the overall cost 
for water would decrease from $.94 to $.897 for each billing 
unit (748 gallons of water). However, the PUC is also 
proposing a meter charge increase of 14% in addition to the 
water charge base rate increase of 18% for the City and 
suburban retail customers. The meter rate increase for 
fiscal year 1991-92 was approximately 10.5%. Since these 
increased rates are proposed simultaneously with the 
elimination of the $0.18 per billing unit surcharge, most 
users would find a decrease in the overall cost of water, 
except low volume water users may find no change or a 
slight increase in the water bills. The rate increase for San 
Francisco customers (displayed in Attachment 1) ranges 
from approximately a 0% increase per unit consumed for 
single family residential users, to approximately a 3.8% 
decrease per unit consumed estimated for high volume water 
users, such as restaurants. Based upon the Water 
Department's assumption, the units consumed for single 
family residential units would be 7 units (6 units were 
assumed for FY 1991-92), the average monthly water cost for 
an average single family residential unit would remain the 
same at $8.68, or approximately $104.16 annually, 
representing a percent increase. 

There are two resolutions for each proposed rate schedule 
described above (i.e., two resolutions for water supplied to 
City and suburban retail customers, and two resolutions for 
water supplied to suburban resale customers). The first 
resolution in each case, if approved, would find that adoption 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 



86 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

of the proposed rate schedule would not result in the need for 
a tax subsidy for the San Francisco Water Department. The 
second resolution in each case would disapprove the revised 
schedule of rates. 

With respect to each proposed rate schedule, approval of the 
first resolutions would make a necessary finding that no tax 
subsidy would be required to fund the operations, capital and 
reserve requirements of the San Francisco Water 
Department, and disapproval of the second resolution would 
adopt the proposed schedule of rates. If the Board of 
Supervisors decides to disapprove the requested rate 
increases and thereby approve the second resolution, a two- 
thirds vote of the Board would be necessary. The Board of 
Supervisors cannot alter the proposed rate schedules but can 
only approve or disapprove rates. Approval of any resolution 
which disapproves a rate schedule would return the rate 
matter to the Public Utilities Commission for further 
consideration. 

Comments: 1. For 1990-91, the Department began the year with no 

beginning fund balance. A base rate increase of 14% was 
approved for 1990-91 which provided the Department with an 
ending cash balance of $1,096,000 for 1990-91. For 1991-92, the 
base rate was also increased by 14%, plus an additional 
"water purchase surcharge" which was added to pay for the 
purchase of additional water from outside the water system 
which resulted in a total increase of 30.96% per billing unit 
consumed. The Department estimates that it will begin 1992- 
93 with no beginning balance. The Water Department had 
originally anticipated that approximately $3 million would be 
available in carryforward funds for fiscal year 1992-93. 
However, according to Mr. John Mullane of the Water 
Department, because actual water consumption for FY 1991- 
92 was at approximately a 35% conservation level, rather 
than what was required under the 25% mandatory rationing 
program, the Water Department is not projecting to have an 
ending balance carryforward for FY 1992-93. After reviewing 
the proposed revenues and expenditures (as in Attachment 
2), the Budget Analyst has estimated that approximately 
$110,415 would the ending balance for FY 1991-92, rather 
than zero as projected by the Water Department. 

2. In 1990-91, a five year financial plan was proposed to the 
Public Utilities Commission that established regular rate 
increases of 14 percent for five years through 1994-95. This 
plan utilized bonds as a rate stabilizing tool to give the 
customers a graduated increase in rates. At the end of 1994- 
95, the water rate base may be sufficient to meet both regular 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



operating and capital funding requirements, without the 
need to issue additional bonds, according to Mr. Mullane. 

3. The Board of Supervisors, in April of 1991, authorized the 
Water Department to proceed with the sale of $76 million in 
revenue bonds to fund short term capital needs. This prior 
sale of the revenue bonds represents a "non-cash alternative" 
for financing Water Department repair and replacement 
projects, and would reduce the Department's need to 
significantly increase water rates to customers in order to 
fund those capital improvements. The Water Department 
does not intend to issue any additional debt during fiscal year 
1992-93. However, given that the Water Department issued 
additional revenue bonds during April of 1991, annual debt 
service requirements have increased from approximately $9 
million for fiscal year 1991-92, to approximately $16 million 
for fiscal year 1992-93. According to Ms. Michelle Witt of the 
PUC, approximately $107 million in bond funds were 
refinanced during February, 1992, which includes the $76 
million in bonds issued in April, 1991. Ms. Witt reports that 
this refinancing should result in approximately a $450,000 
savings to debt service. However, because of the $76 million 
in revenue bonds issued in April, 1991, this increase in 
annual debt service more than offsets any savings realized 
through bond refinancing. 

4. The Water Department delivers water on a wholesale basis 
to 30 water agencies (named the suburban resale customers) 
outside the City and County of San Francisco. In 1984, the 
Department and its suburban customers approved a 
settlement agreement and master water sales contract. This 
agreement resolved litigation pending since 1974 and 
established a method by which suburban resale rates are 
calculated each year. Under the agreement, cost accounting 
and rate setting is divided and based on the distinct costs of 
providing water services to City retail customers as opposed 
to "Suburban Resale" customers who purchase water on a 
wholesale basis. The City sets the wholesale water rates to 
recover all costs associated with providing water to the 
Suburban Resale Customers, plus a rate of return on all debt 
funded assets and future revenue funded assets. In 1990-91, 
the estimated suburban revenue payable to the City was 
$41,473,790, or $7,655,101 less than what the City estimated it 
would receive from suburban resale customers to pay their 
share of costs based on water usage. The estimated payment 
and revenue requirement for 1991-92 will result in $7,655,101 
(See Attachment 2) still being owed to San Francisco. 
However, because of the rationing plan adopted by the PUC, 
and the related reduced use of water, the PUC has proposed a 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



88 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



rate increase of 18.6 percent for 1992-93 for suburban resale 
customers, in addition to the $7,655,101 which is still owed to 
the City for 1991-92. 

5. The PUC has continued the mandatory 25% water 
rationing plan for fiscal year 1992-93. As noted, actual water 
consumption for FY 1991-92 was at approximately a 35% 
conservation level, rather than what was required under the 
25% mandatory rationing program. Mr. Mullane reports 
that even though there was close to normal rainfall during 
fiscal year 1991-92, a shortage of the supply of water still 
exists. Under the City's Mandatory Water Rationing 
Program, the PUC has established water use allotments and 
excess use charges for all City and suburban retail 
customers. Such excess water use charges are the same as 
currently for 1991-92, except these charges would be extended 
to include currently non-paying municipal accounts (i.e. 
General Fund Departments), during 1992-93 which are 
currently exempt from water usage excess charges. 
Municipal accounts are charges of domestic uses of water by 
City departments. However, water supplied to the Fire 
Department's pump stations would not be subject to these 
excess use charges. The excess use charges are as follows: 

For Water Used in 
Excess Water Excess of Allotment, the 

Consumption Excess Use Charge Will be 

up to 10% over allotment 2 times unit rate 

10 - 20% over allotment 8 times unit rate 

20.01% or more over allotment 10 times unit rate 

Also, in the event water is used in excess of the specified 
allotment, the Water Department may, after one warning, 
install a flow restricting device on the customer service line. 
The charge to install and remove the device shall be as 
follows: 

Meter Size Installation/Removal Cost 

5/8 " to 1" $ 95.00 

1-1/2" to 2" 149.00 

3" and larger Actual Cost 

The above charges for 1992-93 are the same as 1991-92, except, 
as previously noted, for 1992-93, these charges would also be 
applied to all domestic uses of non-paying municipal 
accounts (i.e. General Fund Departments). Also, the Water 
Department may discontinue water service altogether in the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



event continued water consumption in excess of allotments 
occurs. A charge of $30.00 must be paid by the customer prior 
to reactivation of service. 

6. In addition to the proposed rate increases, the two major 
changes proposed for fiscal year 1992-93 are (a) a returned 
check charge of $10.00 to be applied to accounts whose check 
payment is returned due to insufficient funds, and (b) as 
noted above, City General Fund departments will be subject to 
excess charges for domestic water usage. Enterprise Fund 
departments, such as the Airport and the Port are currently 
subject to these excess use charges. According to Mr. 
Mullane, if excess use charges would have been assessed 
against currently non-paying municipal accounts during 
fiscal year 1991-92, it would have resulted in a maximum of 
$1.6 million, which would have been payable from the 
General Fund. Mr. Mullane reports that the Water 
Department is not advising General Fund departments to 
budget additional funds for excess use charges, rather it is 
anticipated that extending these excess use charges to 
municipal accounts would provide an incentive for City 
departments to use less water, and thereby reduce the need 
for the Water Department to purchase additional outside 
water and resulting in an overall water savings. However, 
Mr. Mullane states that if General Fund departments do 
exceed their allotments, and have the same amount of 
domestic water usage as fiscal year 1991-92, then a 
maximum of $1.6 million would have to be paid from the 
General Fund for such excess use charges. 

7. The Budget Analyst has reviewed the rate increases and 
the projected revenues and expenditures for FY 1991-92 and 
FY 1992-93 as proposed by the Water Department. As noted, 
primarily because of water conservation at approximately a 
35% conservation level rather than the 25% mandatory 
conservation as required under the PUC's mandatory 
rationing plan, the Water Department was projecting to have 
a zero ending unappropriated balance for FY 1991-92. 
However, based upon the Budget Analyst's review of the 
projected expenditures, we project that the Water department 
would have an ending balance of $110,415 (See Attachment 2). 
However, this unappropriated ending balance would have a 
negligible effect on the proposed 18% increase in the base rate 
for FY 1992-93. In addition, the Water Department is 
downsizing its capital budget by deobligating $14,730,000 in 
capital improvement projects for FY 1991-92, and also by 
reducing capital expenditures for FY 1992-93 by 
approximately $5 million ($30,465,000 for FY 1991-92 versus 
$25,367,900 for FY 1992-93). Such reduced capital 

BOARD OF SjJPERVISORS 

Budget Analyst 



90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

expenditures are being proposed because revenues have been 
lower than projected as a result of decreased water 
consumption. 

We have also reviewed the water consumption assumptions 
which, along with the recommended rates, determine the 
projected revenue to the Water Fund. Overall for all users, 
the projections conservatively assume continued reductions 
in current consumption due to reaction to the drought and 
from continuing the mandatory rationing plan. As noted, for 
fiscal year 1991-92, although the mandatory rationing plan 
called for a 25% savings in water consumption, actual 
conservation was approximately a 35% savings. The revenue 
projections assume that consumption would increase for 
fiscal year 1992-93 to between a 25% and 35% conservation 
level. 

As previously noted, the PUC is proposing a meter charge 
increase of 14% and the water charge base rate by 18% for the 
City and suburban retail customers, and an 18.6% increase 
for suburban resale customers. Since this increase is 
proposed simultaneously with the elimination of the $0.18 per 
billing unit surcharge, most users would find a decrease in 
the overall cost of water, most users would find a decrease in 
the overall cost of water, except for low volume water users 
may find no change or a slight increase in the water bills. 
Although those meters registering the use of little water, 
such as single family residential units, will not have a 
percentage increase in water rates, and their related water 
bills, high volume water users, such as restaurants, would 
realize approximately a 3.8% decrease in water rates and 
their related water bills. Given that the proposed water rate 
increases favor the higher volume users of water and that the 
proposed legislation would extend the excess use charges for 
exceeding water allotments to municipal accounts (i.e., 
General Fund departments) the Budget Analyst considers 
the proposed legislation to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. As previously noted, if General Fund 
departments do exceed their allotments, and have the same 
domestic water usage as fiscal year 1991-92, then a 
maximum of $1.6 million would have to be paid from the 
General Fund for such excess use charges. 

Recommendations: 1. Approval of the proposed base rate increase of 18%, and an 
increase in the meter charge of 14%, and an 18.6% increase 
for suburban resale customers, which would result in 
approximately a zero percent increase for single family 
residential units, but a decrease in water rates for all other 
higher volume water users, and extending the excess use 

BOARD OF SUFERVTSOKS 

Budget Analyst 

91 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



charges for exceeding water allotments to municipal 
accounts, (i.e., General Fund departments), is a policy 
matter for the Board of Supervisors 

2. If the Board of Supervisors decides to approve the rate 
increases proposed by the Public Utilities Commission, then 
(a) approve resolutions (Files 142-92-1 and 142-92-2) finding 
that no tax subsidy will be required as a result of the proposed 
revised schedule of water rates, and (b) disapprove the 
proposed resolutions (File 142-92-1.1 and 142-92-2.1) for the 
PUC revised schedules of water rates. Such disapproval 
would result in the approval of the rate increases as 
requested by the PUC. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 



92 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Attachment 1 



Monthly Comparison of Current Water Rates 

vs. 

18% Water Rate Increase: Typical San Francisco Customers 



Tvpe 


Estimated Current 
Units of Charge Plus 
Consumption Surcharge 


18% Increase 

Less 

Surcharge 


Cost 
Difference 


% Change 

Per Unit 

Consumed 


Average Single-Family 


7* 


$ 8.68 


$ 8.68 


$ 


0% 


12 Unit Apartment 


29 


35.86 


35.81 


(.05) 


0% 


Large Apartment 


307 


351.48 


347.08 


(4.40) 


(1%) 


Apartment Complex 


2,224 


2,216.36 


2,138.33 


(78.03) 


(3.5%) 


Residential Hotel 


517 


517.48 


499.65 


(17.37) 


(3.4%) 


Restaurant 


378 


371.02 


356.97 


(14.05) 


(3.8%) 


Large Office Building 


575 


603.40 


587.48 


(15.92) 


(2.6%) 


Department Store 


1,286 


1,271.74 


1,225.24 


(46.50) 


(3.7%) 


Hospital 


2,264 


2,253.96 


2,174.21 


(79.75) 


(3.5%) 



* Assumes historical monthly consumption will increase by one unit (748 gallons) for 
FY 1992-93 versus previous estimated consumption, and therefore the projected increase 
would be zero since more water is estimated to be consumed. 



93 






Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Attachment 2, page 1 of 2 



Water Department Fund Balance Projections 
FOR 1991-92 



Beginnin g surplus 

Beginning balance-suburban 

resale balancing account 
Rate Stabilization Fund 

Revenue 

Sale of Water 

Water Purchase Surcharge 

Excess Use Charges 

Rents 

Interest 

Service Charges 

Miscellaneous 

TOTAL REVENUE 
TOTAL SOURCES 

Budgeted Expenditures 

Operating 

Purchase of Water (Hetchy) 

Purch. of addl. water 

G.O. Debt Service 

Revenue Bond Debt Service 

Capital Projects/Facilities Main. 

Total-Budgeted.Exp. 

Non-Budgeted Expenditures 

Suburban Depreciation Cost 
Suburban-Return on Investment 

cost 
Interest- Sub. bal. acct. 
Close Outs/Capital Deobligation 
Total-Non Budgeted Exp. 

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 

Ending balance-suburban resale 

balancing account 
Rate Stabilization Fund 
UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE 



Citv 



1991-92 

Suburban Department 
Resale Total 



$1,096,000 




$1,096,000 


7,765,516 


$(7,765,516) 




14,601,636 




14,601,636 


34,656,201 


48,892,514 


83,548,715 


6,279,814 




6,279,814 


4,500,000 




4,500,000 


3,700,000 




3,700,000 


3,000,000 




3,000,000 


2,000,000 




2,000,000 


1,652,300 




1,652,300 


55,788,315 


48,892,514 


104,680,829 


79.251.467 
38,129,734 


41.126.998 
17,744,452 


120.378.465 


55,874,186 


9,645,188 


4,896,812 


14,542,000 


4,801,595 


7,403,780 


12,205,375 


2,110,000 




2,110,000 


7,088,660 




7,088,660 


30,465,000 




30,465,000 


92,240,177 


30,045,044 


122,285,221 


(3,687,021) 


3,687,021 




(14,428,793) 


14,428,793 




(621,241) 


621,241 




(14,730,000) 






(33,467,055) 


18,737,055 




58.773.122 


48.782.099 


107.555.221 


(7,655,101) 


7,655,101 





12,712,829 





12,712,829 


$15,420,617 


(15,310,202) 


$110,415 



94 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 



Attachment 2, page 2 of 2 



Water Department fund Balance Projections 
FOR 1992-93 



Beginning surplus 
Beginning balance- suburban 
resale balancing account 
Revenue 
Sale of Water 

Water Purchase Surcharge 
Excess Use Charges 
Rents 
Interest 

Service Charges 
Miscellaneous 

TOTAL REVENUE 
TOTAL SOURCES 

Budgeted Expenditures 

Operating 

Purchase of Water (Hetchy) 

Purch. of Water- other sources 

G.O. Debt Service 

Revenue Bond Debt Service 

Capital & Fac. Maint Projects 

Total-Budgeted.Exp. 

Non-Budgeted Expenditures 

Suburban Depreciation Cost 
Suburban-return on investment 
Interest- Suburban account 
Total-Non Budgeted Exp. 

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 

Ending balance- suburban 

resale balancing account 
Rate Stabilization Fund 

UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE 



Citv 



1992-93 

Suburban Department 
Resale Total 



$110,415 

$7,655,101 

40,572,753 

3,000,000 
3,883,000 
2,250,000 
2,300,000 
1.100.000 

53.105.753 
73,584,098 

38,620,862 

9,392,015 

1,573,600 

2,002,795 

14,376,485 

25.367.900 

91,333,657 

(4,712,741) 

(15,573,501) 

(459.306) 

(20,745,548) 

70.588.109 


12.712.829 

$ 2,995,989 


$(7,655,101) 
57,965,227 


$110,415 



98,537,980 

3,000,000 
3,883,000 
2,250,000 
2,300,000 
1.100.000 


57.965.227 
50,310,126 

21,988,193 
5,149,985 
2,426,400 


111.070.980 


123,894,224 

60,609,055 
14,542,000 
4,000,000 
2,002,795 
14,376,485 
25.367.900 


29,564,578 

4,712,741 

15,573,501 

459.306 

20,745,548 

50.310.126 





120,898,235 







120.898.235 




12.712.829 


$ 2,995,989 



95 



M/3mo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Item 14 - File 100-91-7 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
6, 1992. 

The item is a hearing to consider the status of the City's economic vitality 
and business climate. 

According to the State Employment Development Department (EDD), the 
local and regional economy of San Francisco and the Bay Area is characterized 
primarily by a large and growing service sector. The service sector comprised 
33.3% of jobs in San Francisco County in 1988. Below is a breakdown of jobs within 
San Francisco County in 1988 (the last year for which data are available), as 
determined by EDD, with projected percentage changes in the size of each sector 
through 1993. The substantial growth in the service sector is attributable to the 
strength of business services, engineering, accounting and research services, 
medical services, and legal services, and rapid expansion in the hotel industry. 

Major San Francisco Industries and Projected Changes in Employment 

Projected 
Percentage Increases Percentage 

ofS. F. (Decreases) from of S. F. 

Employment (1988) 1988-1993 * Employment (1993) 



Services 33.3% 


11.4 


35.9% 


Government 16.1 


1.7 


15.8 


Retail Trade 13.9 


4.6 


14.0 


Finance, Insurance & Real 






Estate (FIRE) 13.9 


-2.7 


13.0 


Manufacturing 7.4 


-6.3 


6.7 


Transportation and Public Utilities 7.1 


-2.3 


6.7 


Wholesale Trade 5.6 


-3.5 


5.3 


Mining and construction 2.7 


-4.5 


23. 



Total Employment 100.0% 3.4 100.0% 

* Column 2 shows the expected percentage change in employment between 1988 and 1993 by 
industry. Due to variations in the size of each industry (Column 1), and the projected increase of 
3.4% in San Francisco's employment between 1988 and 1993, the net effect by 1993 cannot be 
obtained by simply adding the percentage changes shown by industry. Column 3 reflects the 
expected effect on San Francisco employment of these changes on each sector relative to its size. 

Table 1 on the following page reflects the number of jobs to be gained or lost 
between 1988-93, based on the EDD projections, which were issued in June 1991. 
The second table below shows the relative contribution of each sector of the 
economy on the total expected change in San Francisco employment. 

The tables can be interpreted as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

96 



./illl^JJ^ZgJJ_J^2LBEK?L_S2£ _JOBS IN SAN FRANCISCO , TABLE 1 1988-93 

1983 1993 

1UDUSTRIKS Sectors IliflllSTRI F.S Sectors CHANCE 

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 560,500 579,500 18,900 

KiS-S'G/COKSTEUCTlCS 15,400 14,700 (700) 

KAS'UFACTURIKC 4 i ,400 38,800 (2,600) 

Nondurable 32,900 31,600 (1,300) 

•Foe: 5,700 4,900 (800) 

Apparel 12,800 12,900 100 

Printing/Publish 10,300 10,500 200 

Other 4,100 3,300 (800) 

Durable 3,500 7,200 (1,300) 

:-:=u!s 1,800 1,300 (500) 

Trass?. Equip. 1,800 1,100 (700) 

Other 4 ,900 4,800 (100) 

TRASSPORTATIOS/UTILITEBS 39,900 39,000 (90C) 

Transportation ■-■ 20,600 21,600 1,000 

CoEaunication/Utiiities 19,300 17,400 (1,900) 

VROLSSALE TRADE 31,600 30,500 (1,100) 

RETAIL TRADE 77,800 81,400 3,600 

Department stores 8,100 8,000 (100) 

rood stores 8,600 9,600 1 ,000 

Apparel stores 7,800 8,100 300 

Restaurants t bars 32,400 33,200 800 

Other 20,900 22,500 1,600 

FINANCE/INSURANCE/ 

/REAL ESTATE 77,700 75,600 (2,100) 

finance 47,400 46,000 (1,400) 

insurance/Real Estate 30,300 29,600 (700) 

SERVICES 186,600 207,800 21.20C 

Hotel services 17,000 19,600 2,600 

3usiness services 47,000 55,200 3,200 

Health services 25,000 25,700 700 

Legai services 19,200 23,500 4,300 

Social services 20,400 21,700 1,300 

Engineer, Architect, Kangot 28,200 30,200 2,000 

Other 29,800 31,900 2,100 

GOVERKHKHT 90,200 91,700 1,500 

Federal 29,500 27,000 (2,500) 

State and Local 60,700 64,700 4,000 

560,600 579,500 





Percent c 


hange 




Vithin in 


dustry 


TCT.-L EHPLOVHEJ.'T 


3.37 




H I S I SC/COSS TR'JCT I OK 




[4-55] 


rASUFACTURIKG 


[6.23] 




Nondurable 


(3.S5) 




; £ L 




(14.04) 


Apparel 




0.78 


Prin.ting/Pufalisti 




1.94 


Other 




(19.51) 


Durable 


(15.29) 




Hetals 




(27.78) 


Transp. Equip. 




(38.89) 


Other 




(2.04) 


TRAHSPORTATEON/UTILITIES 


(2.26) 




Transportation 




4.85 


Cosaunicat ion/Utilities 




(9.84) 


k'EOLESALK TRADE 




(3.48) 


RETAIL TRADE 


4.63 




Departc-eDt stores 




(1.23) 


Food stores 




11.63 


Apparel stores 




3.85 


Restaurants £ bars 




2.47 


Other 




7.66 


FINANCE/INSURANCE/ 






/REAL ESTATE 


(2.70) 




Finance 




(2.95) 


[nsurance/Reai Estate 




(2-31) 


SERVICES 


11.36 




Hotel services 




15.29 


Business services 




17.45 


Health services 




2.80 


Legal services 




22.40 


Social services 




6.37 


Engineer, Architect, Hangf 


it 


7.09 


Other 




7.05 


GOVERNKENT 


1.66 




Federal 




(8.47) 


State and Local 




6.59 



Tabic 2 

PERCENT OF TOTAL PROJECTED CHANGE IK EMPLOYMENT 
1988 - 1993, ATTRIBUTED TO INDUSTRIAL SECTORS 



Percent share 
of total change 

100.00 

[3.70| (3.70} 

(13.15) 

(4.23) 
0.53 
1.06 

(4.23) 

(2.65) 
(3.70) 
(0.53) 



[4.76) 



5.29 
[10.05! 



(5.82) (5.82; 

19.05 

(0.53! 
5.2S 
1.59 
4.23 
8.47 



(11. Hi 

(7.4 ii 
(3.7CJ 

112.1; 

13.76 

43. 3S 
3.70 

22.?; 
6.3; 

!C.5i 

i 1 . ! 1 



7.9< 



(13.23) 
21.15 



98 



100.0 100.9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

The net change in the level of employment in San Francisco, based on EDD 
estimates, is a net gain of 18,900 (579,500 less 560,600) jobs between 1988 and 1993 
(see Table 1). Table 2 shows the percentage share of this net change by industry. 
Of the total net gain of 18,900 jobs, approximately 19 percent of the change is 
attributable to the 3,600 new jobs expected to be added in the Retail Trade sector 
(3,600 is approximately 19 percent of 18,900). 

Manufacturing Industry. The Manufacturing sector is projected to 
contribute negatively to the change in San Francisco employment, offsetting 
approximately 14 percent of the gain in other sectors. The negative 14 percent 
share of job growth attributable to manufacturing represents the projected loss of 
2,600 jobs in this sector (18,900 net change in jobs x 14 percent equals 2,600). 

Although there is anticipated to be a decline overall in the manufacturing 
sector, San Francisco is now the third largest apparel manufacturing center in 
the U.S., according to the Chamber of Commerce, accounting for 30% of the 
manufacturing jobs in the City. Gains in this industry are due in part to shifts in 
the retail industry away from large department stores toward specialty and chain 
stores. Retail apparel stores are expected to exhibit employment gains between 
1988 and 1993 of 3.4%, according to EDD. 

Services Industry. The tables reflect dramatic growth in the Services sector. 
The projected change in employment in the Services sector of the economy exceeds 
the total number of jobs expected to be added; the Services sector contributes more 
than 112 percent of the job growth (18,900 net gain x 112 percent equals 21,200 new 
jobs in the Service Sector). In other words, job growth in this sector includes 
18,900 new jobs, equal to the net gain, as well as an additional 2,300 new jobs 
which offset some of the losses in others sectors. 

By representing employment changes within industries as a percentage of 
the net change in employment, Table 2 suggests the magnitude of each industry's 
projected effect on total job growth in the local economy. 

Labor Supply and Growth Mr. Douglas Perron, the labor market analyst at 
EDD, who projected these changes in employment, states that job growth through 
1993 is unlikely to be as strong as the statistics indicate, due to the recession 
which began in 1990. Therefore, the numbers should not be used as a reliable 
prediction of actual job growth. However, Mr. Perron indicates that the 
employment trends reflected by the statistics, such as the strong growth in the 
Service Sector and the decline in Manufacturing employment within the City, 
continue to reflect expected changes in San Francisco's job market. 

A major factor influencing business location decisions is the availability of 
skilled labor. A 1990 Standard and Poor's report indicated that the San Francisco 
area's unemployment rate of 3.4% in 1989 was among the 20 lowest in the nation, 
and that the higher growth rate of jobs relative to growth of the labor force had 
significantly tightened the labor market between 1986-89. 

Figures from EDD indicate that unemployment in San Francisco in 1990 
was 4.0%, somewhat lower than the 5.6% rate in California and the national 

BOARD OF SI J PERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

99 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

average of 5.5%. Even during the current recession, the City's unemployment rate 
has been relatively low, with the unadjusted rate for October 1991 being 5.3% in 
San Francisco compared to 7.8% in Los Angeles, 7.3% Statewide, and 6.4% 
nationally. 

Mr. Perron states that San Francisco is characterized by a mature economy 
which lacks significant opportunities for sustained employment growth, in 
contrast to outlying communities in the Bay Area. Space limitations, 
transportation concerns, and high labor costs constrain some businesses from 
locating in San Francisco rather than in outlying areas, where these constraints 
are less severe. Although he indicates that opportunities for physical expansion, 
are limited, with the notable exceptions of Mission Bay and possibly Hunters 
Point, Mr. Perron states that it is not necessarily true that an economy which 
does not continually add jobs must therefore be stagnating or dying. 

A 1990 guide to business conditions published by Standard and Poor's 
indicates that the average annual job growth of 1.4% in the San Francisco area 
between 1986-89 was the fifth worst rate of growth among 23 metropolitan areas in 
the West. This was attributed to high building costs, a lack of affordable building 
space, and out-migration of business due to low office vacancy rates and 
associated high rents. 

According to the Mayor's Office of Business and Economic Development, job 
growth in San Francisco is constrained by business density and growth 
restrictions, although the City's "compound annual rate of employment growth 
since 1988 at 1.5% has been higher than for any other four year period since 1972." 

Business Opportunities. Issues of particular relevance to the San Francisco 
economy, according to Mr. Perron, include the mix of businesses which are 
present in the City, the competitive advantages available in San Francisco to firms 
in specific industries, and the amenities which San Francisco can offer to attract 
and retain businesses which are best suited to San Francisco's specific economic 
conditions. Mr. Perron expects San Francisco to continue to be attractive to firms 
in the service, retail, and tourism industries, and as the site for corporate 
headquarters. He expects the City to continue to compare unfavorably as a site for 
the location of managerial, clerical, and information services located in "back 
office" facilities, since companies are expected to be unwilling to pay high office 
rents for employees having little contact with the public, especially in view of San 
Francisco's continuing problems of transportation and housing. 

Mr. Perron comments that the local San Francisco economy is particularly 
well suited to the Tourism, Finance, Retail, and Services industries, and that 
these strengths are expected to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Tourism . According to a February, 1991 report of the San Francisco 
Chamber of Commerce, tourism continues to grow at an annual rate of 2-4% 
annually, accounting for 11.1% of San Francisco jobs. These visitors are 30% 
business travelers, 36% conventioneers or tour groups, and 34% tourists or others, 
and they pay approximately $140 million in taxes annually to the City, as reported 
by the Chamber of Commerce. 

BOARD OF SUP ERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

i no 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Finance. Insurance and Real Estate has been a strong segment of the local 
San Francisco economy, representing 13.9% of San Francisco County jobs in 1988. 
A 1990 report of business conditions published by Standard & Poor's indicated that 
the segment's 11% share of Bay Area employment compared with an average 
share of 7% for Western metropolitan areas, and that banking's share alone, at 
5%, was "twice as concentrated" in the San Francisco area as in the average 
urban area of the nation. The report also noted that the 2% annual decline in 
banking employment since 1986 stemmed from "white collar consolidations now 
endemic to that industry." The effects of these trends on San Francisco's banking 
industry will hurt the local economy, but should also be interpreted in the context 
of such larger industry shifts. 

Retail Sales . Figures from the California Board of Equalization and U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce indicate that taxable retail sales in San Francisco in 1990 
were 5.6% higher than in 1989, as compared with an overall growth rate of only 
3.4% for California. The 5.0% growth in sales within the San Francisco Primary 
Metropolitan Statistical Area (San Francisco, Marin, and San Mateo Counties) 
was higher than for the Bay Area taken as a whole, with retail sales growth of 
2.8%. Sales grew by 3.8% in 1990 for the nation. 

Board of Equalization figures also show that taxable retail sales in the first 
half of 1991 decreased by 1.3% over the same period in 1990. This compared 
favorably with a decline of 3.6% for California and 6.3% for Los Angeles. 

International Trade. Mr. Perron attributes a significant part of the growth 
of the Services sector to a continuing expansion of commerce with Pacific Rim 
countries, which generates economic activity in import/export industries, in legal 
services such as patents and trademarks, in other areas concerned with 
international trade, and in the many enterprises which provide direct and 
indirect services to firms. The region's economy is developing an increasingly 
important concentration in international trade, according to a 1991 report by the 
Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). The value of 
exports and imports passing through the San Francisco custom district more 
than doubled between 1983 and 1989. Many jobs in the finance industry and in 
legal and professional services are probably related to this growing segment of the 
economy. The two major groups of Trade (wholesale and retail) and Services 
could account for 70% of job gains in the Bay Area through 2000, with the strength 
of international trade being a prime determinant of the continued vitality of the 
regional economy. 

Business Taxes. San Francisco's business tax is assessed either on a firm's 
total payroll or total gross receipts, with the base chosen which produces the 
higher tax assessment. A firm is exempt from the business tax if its liability is 
less than $2,500, but all businesses must pay a business registration fee of $150. 
The registration fee is waived for firms grossing less than $15,000. 

According to Mr. John Tanaka in the Tax Collector's Office, in Fiscal Year 
1990-91, only 6,500 of the 56,000 firms doing business in San Francisco, or 
approximately 11.6%, paid business tax to the City. 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

101 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Of the firms which do pay business tax, most pay the tax on payroll rather 
than gross receipts. In FY 1990-91, according to Mr. Tanaka, the City received 
$126 million in payroll taxes and $21 million in gross receipts taxes, for a total of 
$147 million in business tax revenue. (Of the total business tax receipts, this 
equates to 85.7% payroll tax and 14.3% gross receipts tax.) 

The gross receipts tax rate differs for different types of businesses in the 
City. The Tax Collector classifies businesses among 15 categories, and assigns tax 
rates of either .123% ($1.23 per $1,000 of gross receipts), .15%, or .30% according to 
the business classifications. According to Mr. Tanaka, these differential rates 
have been adjusted slightly over the years, but are essentially patterned after the 
Los Angeles business tax ordinance which was used as a model for San 
Francisco's business tax when it was adopted in 1968. Many businesses in the 
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector are exempt from local business taxes 
under California law. 

Mr. Perron notes that prospective changes in the City's tax base and tax 
revenues resulting from business location decisions should be considered in light 
of the City's revenue needs and the size of its population. Differential tax rates for 
different industries result in certain firms contributing more than others to the 
City's tax revenues. According to Mr. Kent Sims of the Mayor' Office, the Mayor's 
Office is reviewing the City's current business registration fee, payroll and gross 
receipts taxes as well as parking taxes concerning the equity, ease of collection 
and administration and revenue needs of the City. 

Mr. Perron also states that problems of job creation and retention are linked 
to issues of transportation and housing, which affect costs of doing business as 
well as the quality of life. 

Air Quality Control. Stricter air quality regulations promulgated by the Bay 
Area Air Quality Management District will soon require large employers to 
design specific measures to improve employee mobility and reduce reliance on 
single occupancy vehicles. Mr. Perron states that such air quality and 
transportation standards will have a significant impact on business location 
decisions, especially for manufacturing firms. Whereas the ratio of jobs to total 
population is approximately 1:2 in average urban areas, according to Mr. Perron, 
the City's employment level of approximately 565,000 jobs and total population of 
approximately 730,000 gives a ratio of 1:1.3. Based on 1990 figures attributed to the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Mr. Perron indicates that 
approximately 320,000 San Francisco residents work in the City, suggesting that 
as many as 245,000 workers may be commuting daily to work in San Francisco 
from other jurisdictions. Mr. Perron reports that the number of commuters into 
the City is more conservatively approximated between 150,000 and 200,000. 

Mr. Bob Arnold, an economist with the Center for the Continuing Study of 
the California Economy in Palo Alto, analyzes business and economic conditions 
in San Francisco and the Bay Area. He states that the local San Francisco 
economy witnessed a transitionary period in the 1980s, when high costs of doing 
business in the City, largely attributable to the costs of leasing commercial space, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

102 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

resulted in relocations away from the City, especially for firms in manufacturing 
and wholesale trade. 

Commercial Costs and Vacancy Rates. Business expansions into San 
Francisco are influenced in part by the availability and cost of office space. 
Figures issued in late 1991 by MOBED, citing the Society of Office and Industrial 
Realtors, indicate that San Francisco's office vacancy rate of 15.1% is the second 
lowest of the top ten real estate markets in the nation, after New York City 
(13.7%). The Chamber of Commerce recently announced renewed efforts to attract 
and retain businesses in San Francisco. According to Mr. Jim Lazarus of the 
Chamber of Commerce, commercial rents in San Francisco have become more 
competitive with neighboring communities, but the local business tax is still a 
significant burden which creates a disincentive to firm location in the City. 

Mr. Arnold believes that business costs have now equalized, and that the 
growth and expansion of service industries in the last decade have led to improved 
conditions which will enhance job growth and business retention in the 1990s. A 
major challenge for San Francisco in this economic climate, according to Mr. 
Arnold, is to provide the skilled workers needed to accommodate the growth of the 
service sector. 

Per capita income/Housing costs . Per capita income in the Bay Area is 
among the highest in the nation. The $28,000 per capita income level in the San 
Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area (including Marin and San Mateo 
Counties) in 1989 was the second highest in the nation; San Francisco's level was 

$28,742. 

Because of the constraints imposed by limited physical space and building 
restrictions, Mr. Perron states that the location of businesses in San Francisco 
involves a trade-off between commercial and residential uses of available space, 
and that this tradeoff raises issues of housing affordability and the economic 
stratification of San Francisco's population which are political in nature. He 
notes that high housing costs generate high property and transfer tax revenues 
for the City, but may lead to out-migration from the City by members of some 
income groups. 

The CCSCE report indicates that per capita income in the Bay Area grew at 
an average annual rate of 2.1% between 1979-89, faster than the State average of 
1.1% and faster than any other region in the State. Total personal income rose at 
an average annual rate of 3.6% in the same period, compared to the national 
average of 2.7%. According to the report, however, "high wage rates only partly 
offset high housing prices," with the Bay Area having the 14th least affordable 
housing market in the nation, second in California only to Anaheim. 

Mr. Arnold comments that the City's economic health can be measured not 
only by statistics concerning job growth, but by changes in average real income, 
which has risen in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Higher real income, 
according to Mr. Arnold, reflects higher levels of productivity and the presence of 
an increasingly skilled work force, which is characteristic of a higher 
concentration of service industries. Mr. Arnold also cautions strongly against 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

103 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

interpreting the effects of a national recession as indicative of structural problems 
in the local and regional economy, and therefore reiterates his opinion that San 
Francisco and the Bay Area demonstrate considerable economic strength. 

Future Growth of Bav Area Jobs and Population . According to CCSCE's 
1991 report, the Bay Area will add more jobs than any California region, except 
the Los Angeles Basin through the year 2000, although the rate of growth will be 
the slowest of all regions of the State. Rates of job growth for all regions of 
California will still exceed the national average. 

CCSCE reports that job growth in the Bay Area will entail a substantial 
increase in population. CCSCE estimates that the region could increase by as 
many as 877,000 new residents by the year 2000, slightly more than the estimated 
844,000 new residents added between 1980 and 1990. 

According to U.S. Census figures, San Francisco's population grew by 6.6% 
in the 1980s, slower than the Bay Area growth rate of 16.5% for the period. The 
number of Asian residents increased by 43%, while the number of Hispanic 
residents grew by 20.8%. These figures suggest that the nation's strong increase 
in immigration from abroad during the decade may have accounted for a 
significant portion of San Francisco's population growth. 

Increased Decentralization of Housing and Jobs . Growth during the 1979-89 
period was accommodated through greater decentralization of housing and 
employment centers. The very high rate of job growth in outlying areas of the 
region between 1979-90 is shown in Exhibit 1. Changes in percentage employment 
shares of Bay Area counties between 1972-1989 is shown in Exhibit 2, which 
reflects the decline in San Francisco's share of Bay Area employment from 25.1% 
in 1972 to 19.4% in 1989. 

Mr. Michael McGill is the Director of the San Francisco Economic Forum, 
which he describes as a public/private partnership to address issues of regional 
economic vitality, whose Directors are appointed by the Association of Bay Area 
Governments and the Bay Area Council, and whose work is financed by 
corporations throughout the region. 

Mr. McGill observes that during the 1970's an average of some 11,000 jobs 
annually relocated to San Francisco, as compared to fewer than 1,000 in a 
comparable period between 1980-87. Mr. McGill attributed this change in the rate 
of job creation to "massive" job relocations to areas outside the City by large 
corporations during the 1980s, including as many as 30,000 to 40,000 backoffice 
jobs. Many of these jobs were in the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 
industry, according to Mr. McGill. 

Although losses of this magnitude in the relocation of San Francisco jobs 
to other jurisdictions have now abated, Mr. McGill expects that similar 
relocations would occur if the City's office vacancy rate in San Francisco falls 
below 9 percent, from its current level of approximately 12 percent. Because of the 
imposition of commercial growth restrictions under Proposition M, Mr. McGill 
expects that the office vacancy rate will fall below this level in the late 1990s. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

104 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Moreover, because new office space takes as many as 7 years to construct, Mr. 
McGill expects a serious situation to result as the vacancy rate declines, jobs are 
relocated to other areas, and new commercial space remains unavailable for an 
extended time. 

The relocation of back office jobs has also contributed to the attrition of 
middle class workers in the City, according to Mr. McGill. He states that this has 
led to increased stratification between highly skilled workers in service industry 
occupations, including professional occupations, and low-skilled or unskilled 
workers in the growing sectors of retail trade, restaurants, and tourism. 

The Mission Bay project will provide some additional facilities for back 
office operations, but for the most part Mr. McGill expects San Francisco to 
remain uncompetitive with respect to these jobs. He attributes this to planning 
regulations which require that new commercial projects include a range of public 
amenities, such as housing and transportation fees, day care, and open space, 
and that such new commercial projects succeed in design competitions with other 
proposed projects. BackOffice space is not well-suited to such requirements, 
according to Mr. McGill. 

Housing Construction . Mr. McGill also cites the inadequate size of the 
City's housing stock and a limited supply of affordable housing as a cause of the 
City's loss of jobs to outlying communities. 

CCSCE reports that residential housing construction in the Bay Area will 
continue to be strong, but that it will be concentrated outside of San Francisco in 
areas where land is abundant and less costly. The "residential focus," therefore, 
"will continue moving to the fringes." 

Continued lack of residential space and affbrdability in San Francisco will 
result in continuing high prices for labor and possible shortages of skilled 
workers, continuing problems of inadequate transportation, and continued high 
personal expenditures for housing services. Mr. McGill recommends that the 
City amend zoning regulations to permit more extensive housing development in 
areas such as South of Market. 

Mr. McGill comments that the challenge to San Francisco of job creation 
and business retention is "the challenge of growth generally," which is to target 
and recruit specific industries best suited for the economic climate in San 
Francisco and to initiate efforts to keep them in San Francisco. He cites as an 
example the substantial contributions to the San Francisco economy of the 
University of California at San Francisco (UCSF), and the need for a public role in 
assisting UCSF to locate the facilities needed to operate its research facilities and 
to add up to 1 million additional square feet of space in the near future. 

Committee on JOBS. The Committee on JOBS is a group of San Francisco 
business leaders working to enhance the long-term economic vitality of the City, to 
ensure that the City remains an attractive and competitive place to live and work. 
On February 19, 1992, Mr. Sam Ginn, the Chairman of the Committee on JOBS 
and the Chairman and CEO of Pacific Telesis Group presented the Committee on 

BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

JOBS report to the Finance Committee. This report addresses the need for a 
partnership between local government and business and community 
organizations and outlines governmental goals for 1992. These goals include cost 
effective service delivery, taxation, transportation, permit process, City image and 
business climate, economic development and the urban environment. Mr. Sims 
reports that the Mayor's Office is currently reviewing and working with the 
Committee on JOBS. 

Small Business Advisory Commission. The Small Business Advisory 
Commission, comprised of 11 members has recently reviewed and held hearings 
regarding changes to the Commission. On March 25, 1992 the Small Business 
Advisory Commission recommended to amend the San Francisco Administrative 
Code, Article XIII, to eliminate the Small Business Advisory Commission and 
instead to establish an overall Business Advisory Commission. Such changes 
would require approval of the Board of Supervisors and the Small Business 
Advisory Commission is urging the Mayor to seek adoption of such legislation by 
the Board of Supervisors. The proposed new Commission would incorporate both 
large and small, downtown and neighborhood business interests and would 
increase the number of commissioners from 11 to 15 members. Such an expanded 
commission could be used to reconcile various business and economic views and 
provide recommendations to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. 

Economic Development Plans. Mr. Sims reports that the Mayor's Office is 
currently developing a Citywide economic development plan and strategy, 
including identifying the role of the City and specific departments (e.g., the Port 
and Airport), regulatory and legal requirements, infrastructure needs, targeted 
industries, housing and transportation needs and many of the issues outlined 
above. Work on this plan and strategy, which have recently begun are expected to 
be completed in approximately one year. According to Mr. Sims, it is anticipated 
that this Citywide plan and strategy can provide a general framework or 
guidelines for future public policy decisions regarding economic development in 
the City. 

In addition, work has begun on individual neighborhood sector economic 
development plans, which will attempt to coordinate various City department 
programs (e.g., Redevelopment Agency, Community Development Block Grant 
Program, Enterprise Zone, etc.) in addressing economic strategies for these 
neighborhoods. The first plan, which is nearing completion, will focus on the 
Bayview and Hunters Point neighborhood. Economic development plans for the 
Tenderloin and the Mission are anticipated to be conducted next. 

Employment Impacts. The Budget Analyst has analyzed the employment 
impacts on the San Francisco Bay Area of an additional $1 billion of grant or bond 
funds to the City. The following two charts reflect the number of direct jobs and 
the total number of direct and indirect jobs that could be expected to result: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



106 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 





Number of 


Number of Direct 




Direct Jobs 


and Indirect Jobs 


Direct Employment 


Per $1 Billion 


Per 


• $1 Billion 


Construction - Non-residential 


9,367 




11,709 


Construction - Highways and 








Public Utilities 


10,633 




12,653 


Maintenance and Repair 


6.800 




8.500 


Total 


26,800 




32,862 



As reflected above, assuming that a total of an additional $1 billion of grant or 
bond funds were equally distributed among the above three construction and 
maintenance sectors of the economy, it is estimated that 26,800 additional direct 
jobs would be created. Overall, a total of 32,862 direct and indirect jobs would be 
created if an additional $1 billion of grant or bond funds were approved by the City. 

These estimates are based on the Association of Bay Area Governments 
(ABAG) Input-Output Model which reflects the impact on the San Francisco Bay 
Area, which includes the surrounding counties. The impact on San Francisco 
would be less, although the precise impact on San Francisco cannot be 
determined. It is also assumed that the jobs created within each of these 
industries are new jobs and not relocations from other jobs and that all purchases 
by businesses would come from enterprises within the Bay Area. 

General Obligation Bonds. The attached information, prepared by the 
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, pertains to the amount of General 
Obligation bond measures that have been approved by the San Francisco voters, 
the amount of bonds issued by the City to date, the remaining amount not yet 
issued and the amount of the four proposed bond measures for the June, 1992 
ballot. As reflected in the attachment, since 1986, the voters of San Francisco have 
approved $753.3 million of General Obligation bonds. To date, a total of 
$390,597,849 of these $753.3 million of approved bonds have not yet been issued. In 
addition, another $148,220,000 for four General Obligation bonds are on the June 
2, 1992 ballot. If all four of these bond measures are approved in June, 1992, it 
would result in a total of $538.8 million of outstanding bonds to be issued. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



107 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

Based on $538.8 million of outstanding bonds, using the same ABAG Input- 
Output Model as above, the Budget Analyst projects this would result in an 
additional 14,440 direct jobs and an overall total of 17,706 direct and indirect jobs 
for the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Harvey M. Rose 

cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



ins 




S X 



8 



en >— 

oo oo 

"bo K> 



On OS 
lo "-o lo 

88^ 




^O N> K> K> 

0\ C> ■— j*=- 

to "^j "to o 

8 8 £ 8 



o 

E 

H 

o 

? 






9 



^ v> oj u> v> 

i- 2 Z Z 2 



OO OO 00 oo oo 
-J -J -J -J Ov 



a. 


00 


CO 




Go 


o 


r» 


P 


*li 


O 


3 


r*> 


tr> 


p 


cr 


C£_ 


<2 




o 


8 


o 


3 


3 


Si 

n 


pa 

o 




•i 


3 






C. 


o 




^r 


rt 


< 


< 




rr. 


^ 


3 

s 


0> 

3 
§ 

•~X 

B 




a 




U> i— 



>— V> C* Q vp •— to K> N> -t>- 

Ov W ^ _vO O CO Oi ^1 00 C\ 

Ifl \ *n] l»i " 

8 8 8 8 




l— .*». tv> (O 

0\ v£> *J. U> 




8 8 



> 
s > 

3. p 



-. > 

8 3 
5 c 



3 





» 

o 
a 
a 

s 

R 
5 



3 

ID 



109 



T0TOL P. 03 



(Public Library, (Documents (Dept 

r Memo to Finance Committee 7 ./MZlA^ Qcrry %Ot\ 

May 20, 1992 

>/<i-u REVISED 

1 Item 9 - File 171-92-2 

This item is a hearing to consider San Francisco's contribution to the Fiscal Year 
1992-93 Peninsula Commute (CalTrain) Service Operating Budget. 

In December, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution to authorize 
the execution of a real property ownership agreement between the members of the Joint 
Powers Board (JPB) to provide for an orderly system of management, development and 
eventual disposition of the property, consisting of the 52-mile corridor between San 
Francisco and San Jose, and for appropriate rights and protections relative to 
SamTrans' advance of funds for the purchase of the property (File 171-91-20). The JPB 
consists of members from the City and County of San Francisco, the San Mateo County 
Transit District (SamTrans) and the Santa Clara County Transit District. 

On December 20, 1990, the JPB executed a Letter of Intent with the Southern 
Pacific Transportation Company for the purchase of the Peninsula Commute Right-of- 
Way from Southern Pacific Transportation Company, consisting of an approximately 52- 
mile corridor between 4th and Townsend Streets in San Francisco and Lick Junction in 
San Jose. The purpose of purchasing the right-of-way is to enable the three counties, 
San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, to jointly operate the peninsula commute 
service (CalTrain). 

The same resolution (File 171-91-20) provided that SamTrans would have the 
option of taking title to the portions of the right-of-way located in San Francisco or Santa 
Clara Counties if these counties do not provide their share of the right-of-way purchase 
price, and recognized, but did not require, that San Francisco intends to contribute 
surplus land owned by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) Water 
Department which is located in San Mateo County as its approximate $10 million share 
towards the purchase of the right-of-way. 

Ms. Robin Reitzes of the City Attorney's Office advises that among the issues to be 
negotiated between the JPB members would be what to do with the excess if the value of 
the land owned by San Francisco in San Mateo exceeds $10 million, e.g., San Francisco 
might have the option of either receiving the difference in cash, or using the funds for 
San Francisco's share of operating costs in future fiscal years. 

Ms. Reitzes reports that the City is completing negotiations with SamTrans with 
regard to the process for appraising the 26 parcels of surplus land owned by the Water 
Department. Ms. Reitzes notes that once the negotiations on the appraisal process and 
instructions for appraisers have been completed, SamTrans will issue a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) for appraisers, an appraiser acceptable to both parties will be selected, 
and an appraisal of the land will be made. 

Mr. Harry Quinn of the Department of Real Estate reports that after the appraisal 
has been made, San Francisco and SamTrans will review the appraisal figures, 
negotiate and attempt to come to an agreement concerning the appraised value of the 
land. Mr. Quinn advises that the City and SamTrans have agreed to evenly split the cost 
of appraising the land and Mr. Bob Mitroffof the PUC reports that^the City expects its 
share of appraisal costs will be less than $50,000. Both Ms. Reitzes and Mr. Quinn 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

estimate that it may take at least nine months or longer to complete the appraisal 
process. Besides the appraisal process, the City will also need to devote time and 
resources to test the land for any hazardous wastes, but at this time it is unclear as to 
when the hazardous waste testing will occur, and what the costs of such testing will be. 

Effective December, 1991, the approximately 52 mile long Peninsula Commute 
Right-of-Way was purchased by the JPB and the portion of the Right-of-Way located in 
San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties belongs to the JPB while the portion in San 
Mateo County belongs jointly to SamTrans and the JPB. This arrangement came about 
in direct proportion to the amount of funding contributed by the respective parties. 

Two contractors bid for the opportunity to operate CalTrain, A.T.E. Management 
and Service Company (ATE), and Amtrak. Since the JPB was unable to reach an 
agreement with ATE due to an impasse concerning liability insurance, the JPB chose to 
make the offer instead to Amtrak. Mr. Jim Gallagher of SamTrans advises that 
starting July 1, 1992, Amtrak will be operating CalTrain. 

Currently, Caltrans is still responsible for management and daily operation of the 
CalTrain service until Amtrak assumes those duties on July 1, 1992. Approximately 40 
percent of operating costs are recovered through fares, leaving a 60 percent deficit. The 
annual Federal subsidy is deducted from the 60 percent deficit. Half of the balance after 
deducting the Federal subsidy is being borne by Caltrans up through fiscal year 1992-93, 
and the other half by the Counties of San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, based 
on their respective riderships. San Francisco's share is 10.2 percent, San Mateo's share 
is 51.0 percent, and Santa Clara's share is 38.8 percent. 

In addition, administrative expenses for the JPB are divided evenly between the 
three counties (prior to the new JPB agreement signed in October, 1991, costs associated 
with administrative oversight of CalTrain were paid by Caltrans, while administrative 
costs (primarily legal and consulting fees) relating to the establishment and operations 
of the JPB, starting July 1, 1990, were divided between the agencies based on the same 
percentages as the operating deficit). Ms. Michelle Witt of the PUC advises that San 
Francisco's cumulative share of the JPB administrative expenses, starting before 1987 
through June 30, 1992, now totals $353,661. This amount has been paid by SamTrans, 
but is now due to SamTrans from the City as part of the transition towards having the 
JPB manage CalTrain. 

On April 7, 1992, the JPB adopted an amended fiscal year 1992-93 budget, making 
San Francisco's projected share of operating costs $1,299,014 (a preliminary budget had 
allocated operating costs of $1,541,277 to the City), based on the assumption that ATE 
would be operating CalTrain. San Francisco's contribution for the operating deficit is 
about $893,116, and an additional $405,898 is for administrative expenses. Mr. 
Gallagher advises that the operating costs were lowered (and therefore, San Francisco's 
allocation of costs was also lowered) as a result of the following factors: a fare increase 
scheduled to take effect in September, 1992; the opening of a new station in southern San 
Jose; new ridership scheduled to start after July 1, 1992; and the decision to not fill 
oversight positions, instead retaining consultants to play an oversight role. At the time 
of this writing, Ms. Brigid Hynes-Cherin, Director of the San Francisco County 
Transportation Authority, had confirmed with the JPB that both Amtrak's and ATE's 
costs had been similar, so it now appears that it will not be necessary for JPB to revise its 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

fiscal year 1992-93 budget to take into account the selection of Amtrak as the CalTrain 
operator. 

Ms. Kathleen Kelly of the PUC advises that for fiscal year 1992-93, the City has 
budgeted $950,000 from General Fund monies, all of which would come from Muni's 
budget, as its share of CalTrain's operating costs, and that presently, there are enough 
funds to pay for almost 9 months of the City's current projected share of operating costs 
of $1,299,014. Ms. Kelly notes that the City has two options: (1) it can use the credit from 
its surplus land toward operating costs to make up the difference between the $950,000 
and the $1,299,014; or (2) it can appropriate additional monies from the General Fund to 
make up the shortfall. The shortfall for fiscal year 1992-93 is currently estimated at 
$349,014 ($1,299,014 budgeted less $950,000 from Muni's General Fund budget). 

Mr. Mitroff and Mr. Richard Cassinerio of SamTrans also report that San 
Francisco's share of CalTrain's operating expenses for fiscal year 1991-92 will exceed 
the budgeted amount of $950,000 by an estimated $832,394 due to the following additional 
expenses: 

(1) $353,661 for the City's share of the JPB's administrative expenses through 
June 30, 1992 (attributable to costs associated with the development and award of 
CalTrain's operating contract, the Environmental Impact Statement for the Downtown 
San Francisco Extension Project, and the acquisition of the Southern Pacific Right-of- 
Way); 

(2) $281,607 for start-up costs to bring Amtrak on line by July 1, 1992; 

(3) $57,876 to substitute for a Federal Section 9 operating grant, which was 
included in the JPB's 1991-92 budget, but has been delayed due to unresolved labor 
issues; 

(4) $89,250, which is San Francisco's share of the acquisition of the Palo Alto 
station (75 percent of the purchase price is being paid by the Federal government while 
San Francisco is paying 25 percent of the balance since the State recently determined it 
will not be able to subsidize the purchase); and 

(5) $50,000 to pay the contractor who will conduct the appraisal of the San 
Francisco Water Department's surplus land which was transferred to the JPB in lieu of 
San Francisco's local match for the Right-of-Way acquisition. 

The PUC informed the Mayor's Office on April 1, 1992 of the above-listed 
additional JPB costs (with the exception of the $89,250 for the purchase of the Palo Alto 
station, as this is a more recent development) which San Francisco is to assume in its 
fiscal year 1991-92 budget. The total amount which the City has budgeted for CalTrain 
in fiscal year 1991-92 is $950,000. As of the writing of this report, the Mayor's Office has 
not identified funds for these additional costs. 

Mr. Stuart Sunshine, Assistant to the Mayor for Transportation, advises that 
presently, the Mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1992-93 only includes $950,000 for 
the City's share of CalTrain's operating costs and that the Mayor's Office hopes that the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

84 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 20, 1992 

appraisal process can be completed by the time the $950,000 has been provided to the 
JPB, so that some credit for the City can be applied against its surplus land. 

Ms. Linda Rhine of JPB's Planning Department reports that her office is in the 
process of developing nine year operating budget projections and a capital improvement 
plan for CalTrain (also known as the Short Range Transit Plan), which will be 
completed in July, 1992. Ms. Rhine has provided the following preliminary operating 
cost projections for San Francisco: 





Number of Trains 


Annual Proiected 
Cost to Citv 


FY 1992-93 


60 


$1 ; 299,014 


FY 1993-94 


60 


$2,511,400 


FY 1994-95 


66 


$3,046,600 


FY 1995-96 


65 


$3,204,700 


FY 1996-97 


66 


$3,370,600 


FY 1997-98 


66 


$3,545,000 


FY 1998-99 


66 


$3,728,000 


FY 1999-2QQQ 


66 


$3,920,100 


FY 2000-2001 


66 


$4,121,900 



Ms. Rhine notes that these figures are likely to change when the contract with 
Amtrak is finalized, and as the JPB evaluates its cost and revenue assumptions. Ms. 
Rhine reports that the projections assume that CalTrain will operate 66 trains starting 
July 1, 1994 through the year 2001, and that Cal trans' subsidy will cease, starting in 
fiscal year 1993-94. These projections also assume that San Francisco's share will 
continue to be 10.2% of the JPB share up through fiscal year 2000-2001, that there will not 
be a downtown extension in San Francisco and that the Federal subsidy of CalTrain will 
continue up through 2001. 

The above listed projections show that San Francisco's share of operating costs 
almost doubles after fiscal year 1992-93, due to the fact that the State subsidy will cease to 
subsidize operating costs by 50 percent after fiscal year 1992-93. The amended Joint 
Powers Agreement (approved by the Board, per File 172-91-16) requires that these 
operating costs be subject to the Board of Supervisors' approval on an annual basis. In 
addition, the real property ownership agreement adopted by the Board (File 171-91-20) 
provides that San Francisco could terminate its participation in the JPB Agreement at 
the end of any fiscal year, provided that one year's notice is given to the other JPB 
members. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



- 

/J(U5 



CALENDAR 



fAk^ 



MEETING OF 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 
^ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

M I 1992 

SArt FRANCiwCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 



WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR MIGDEN - ITEMS a, e, f, g, h, 
i, j, k, 1, m, n 



CLERK: 



GAIL JOHNSON 



NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 



CONSENT CALENDAR 

All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

File 101-90-76.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, in the amount of $150,000, for San Francisco General 
Hospital Medical Center Nuclear Medicine Relocation Construction Project. 
(Department of Public Health) 

File 101-91-1.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Sheriff 
Department, in an amount totalling $134,405, ($109,405 reserved in Ordinance No. 
261 and $25,000 reserved in Ordinance No. 322-91) for permanent salary obligations 
through the end of the Fiscal Year 1991-92. (Also See Files 101-91-1 and 101-91-8) 
(Sheriff) 

File 100-91-1.28 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health, in the amount of $97,200, for temporary salaries at 
various AIDS Health Centers. (Department of Public Health) 

File 101-91-66 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $10,000, Police 
Department - Office of Citizen Complaints, for other current services (relocation 
expenses) and reducing $10,000 from other contractual services. RO #91222 
(Controller) 

File 25-92-15 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that computer programming services to the Department of 
the Board of Supervisors' Legislative Index System can be practically performed by 
private contractor for lower cost than similar work performed by City and County 
employees. (Board of Supervisors) 



f . File 25-92-16 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that janitorial services at the Ferry Building and 
surrounding areas, the Agricultural Building, the Cruise Ship Terminal and at 
various Port piers can be practically performed by private contractor for lower cost 
than similar work services performed by City and County employees. (Port) 

g. File 25-92-1 7. [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that security services for the Port of San Francisco can 
be practically performed by private contractor at lower cost than similar work 
services performed by City and County employees. (Port) 

h. File 25-92-18 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that stationary engineering services can be practically 
performed by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services 
performed by City and County employees. (Real Estate Department) 

i. File 28-92-7 . [Emergency Repair] Resolution authorizing the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to take necessary measures to protect the health, 
welfare and property of the citizens of San Francisco by performing the necessary 
work to replace the damaged ceramic fiber insulation of the waste gas flares at the 
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant with high temperature insulating brick - 
$51,150. (Department of Public Works) 

j. File 38-92-7.1 . [Gift Acceptance - SF Foundation] Resolution authorizing the 
Mayor's Office to accept miscellaneous computer equipment valued at $36,680 
from the San Francisco Foundation for use by the Mayor's Budget Office and the 
Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development. (Mayor) 

k. File 38-92-14 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting a gift to the San 

Francisco Public Library of a Bookmobile, valued at $113,000, from the Friends of 
the San Francisco Public Library. (Public Library) 

1. File 38-92-15 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting a gift from the Library 
Foundation of San Francisco for videotape preservation services and equipment 
valued at $18,962, to be use to clean and reformat the Peter Adair Videotape 
Collection already donated to the Library's Gay/Lesbian Center. (Public Library) 

m. File 38-92-16 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting a gift from the Library 
Foundation of San Francisco of books, periodicals, manuscripts, correspondence and 
photographs from the collection of Barbara Grier and Donna McBride, valued at 
$400,000, to be donated to the Library's Gay/Lesbian Center. (Public Library) 

n. File 130-92-1 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Adult Probation 
Department and Juvenile Probation Department of the City and County of San 
Francisco to retroactively apply for, accept and expend $140,273 in funds from the 
State of California Board of Corrections and Probation Officers Programs; 
stipulating adherence to standards of recruitment and training established by the 
Board of Corrections and waiving any indirect costs. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

o. File 130-92-2 . [Anti-Drug Abuse Funds] Resolution authorizing the Chief Adult 
Probation Officer of the City and County of San Francisco to retroactively apply 
for, accept and expend funds in the amount of $22,875 made available through the 
Office of Criminal Justice Planning for a project entitled "County Master Plan, 
Criminal Justice System Assistance Program." (Mayor) 



File 143-92-1 . [Office of Criminal Justice Planning Funding] Resolution 
authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and County of San Francisco to apply 
for, accept and expend fund in the amount of $110,000 made available through the 
Office of Criminal Justice Planning for a project entitled "Crime Prevention 
Expansion Project, Mission Corridor"; and agreeing to provide cash match in the 
amount of $12,222 dollars. (Police Commission) 

ACTION: Items b, c, d, o and p removed from Consent Calendar. Remainder of 
Consent Calendar recommended. 

Item lb, File 101-91-1.1. Release of $79,628 recommended. Filed. 
(Controller to be requested to return balance of funds placed on reserve, 
in the amount of $54,777, to the General Fund.) 

Item lc, File 100-91-1.28. Release of $60,662 recommended. Filed. 
(Controller to be requested to return balance of funds placed on reserve, 
in the amount of $36,538, to the General Fund.) 

Item Id, File 101-91-66. Amended. (See File for details.) 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Appropriating $10,000, Police 
Department - Office of Citizen Complaints, for other current services 
(relocation expenses) and reducing $10,000 from other contractual 
services; retroactive to April 1, 1992." 

Item lo, File 130-92-2. Amended on page 1, line 5, after "Program", by 
adding "which includes indirect costs in the amount of $1,144, based on 
five percent of the total award." Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Chief Adult Probation Officer of the City and County of 
San Francisco to retroactively apply for, accept and expend funds in the 
amount of $22,875, made available through the Office of Criminal 
Justice Planning for a project entitled 'County Master Plan, Criminal 
Justice System Assistance Program 1 , which includes indirect costs in the 
amount of $1,144, based on five percent of the total award." 

Item lp, File 143-92-1. Continued to the Call of the Chair, at the 
request of the Police Department. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

File 94-91-4.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Public 
Utilities Commission, in the amount of $65,000, for Municipal Railway Contract 
No. MR-1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, Maintenance 
Building, Paint Booth Fans Modification. (Public Utilities Commission) 
(Cont'd from 5/20/92) 

ACTION: Continued to June 3, 1992, meeting. 

File 192-92-2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Executive Director 
of the Department of Parking and Traffic and the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept and expend $450,000 of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 
3 Funds for bicycle/pedestrian projects foregoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 
(Department of Parking and Traffic) 
(Cont'd from 5/20/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 



4. File 97-92-29 . [Employee Health Coverage] Ordinance amending Section 16.157 of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code, approving Health Service System Plans and 
Rates of Contribution as adopted by the Health Service Board. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 5/20/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

5. File 100-92-3 . Hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated revenue 
shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 5/20/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to June 3, 1992, meeting. 

6. File 148-92-2 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Director of 
Public Works to apply for, accept and expend $8,200,000 in Federal funds for 
seismic retrofitting, modifications and rehabilitation of various bridges in San 
Francisco. (Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: Amended. (See files for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply for, accept and 
expend $6,560,000 in Federal funds for seismic retrofitting, modifications 
and rehabilitation of various bridges in San Francisco; placing $5,500,000 
on reserve." 

7. File 123-92-1 . [Excavation Fees] Ordinance amending Public Works Code, by 
amending Sections 352, 353, 368 and 374 and adding Sections 352.1 and 352.2, to 
authorize the Director of Public Works to set schedules of fees and to collect fees 
to recover costs of administering and regulating permitted excavations. 
(Department of Public Works) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

8. File 64-92-6 . [Extension and Modification of Lease] Resolution authorizing 

extension and modification of an existing lease of real property at 23rd and Illinois 
Streets, for the Public Utilities Commission, Municipal Railway. (Real Estate 
Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

9. File 97-92-30 . [Cost Recovery - Parking and Traffic] Ordinance amending 

Administrative Code by adding Sections 10B.16 through 10B.20 thereto, providing 
for recovery of costs for additional parking enforcement and traffic control and 
related services rendered by the Department of Parking and Traffic. (Department 
of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Continued to July 1, 1992, meeting. 



THE FOLLOWING FOUR BOND ITEMS HAVE BEEN CALENDARED SOLELY FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF HEARING PRESENTATIONS BY DEPARTMENTS. THERE 
WILL BE NO REPORTS BY THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY 
COMMITTEE OR THE BUDGET ANALYST. IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CHAIR 
TO CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS (FILES 170-92-5. 170-96-6. 170-92-7 and 
170-92-8) TO JUNE 10. 1992: 

10. File 170-92-5 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring 
that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of correctional facilities, to 
replace the existing San Bruno Jail facilities, including replacement, housing, 
associated health and safety improvements and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $158,100,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and 
County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

11. File 170-92-6 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring 
that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of long term care facilities, 
including replacement of Laguna Honda Hospital facilities, improvements to 
existing Laguna Honda Hospital structures, and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $548,400,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and 
County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

12. File 170-92-7 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring 
that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of a Juvenile Justice 
Complex, including health and safety improvements, asbestos management, disabled 
access and structural and security improvements to the existing Youth Guidance 
Center and Juvenile Hall, a new juvenile Justice Complex and community based 
facilities, that the estimated cost of $78,900,000 for said municipal improvements 
is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of 
said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 
(Supervisor Kennedy) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992 meeting. 



13. File 170-92-8 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring 
that the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of Fire Department 
facilities, including seismic strengthening, asbestos abatement, disabled access, 
separate bathroom and changing areas for male and female firefighters, 
improvements to the auxiliary water supply system and related acquisition, 
construction or reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, 
that the estimated cost of $97,000,000 for said municipal improvements is and will 
be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City 
and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Conroy) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

SPECIAL ORDER - 3:00 P.M. 

14. File 121-92-5 . [Litter Enforcement] Ordinance amending Part n, Chapter Vm, San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Police Code) by amending Article I, Section 38 to add 
one designated officer for the purpose of enforcing laws relating to littering. 
(Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title, as presented by Supervisor 
Shelley, adopted. Recommended as amended. 

15. File 12-92-21 . [Business License Renewal] Resolution urging San Francisco's 
Legislative Advocate to urge San Francisco's State Legislative Delegation to 
introduce legislation directing the Municipal Court to transmit information to the 
Tax Collector of outstanding litter violations prior to the renewal of a business 
license. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Shelley, adopted. 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Urging the Municipal Court of 
the City and County of San Francisco to provide the Tax Collector of the 
City and County of San Francisco with a regular, updated list of 
businesses that have outstanding litter violations, and directing the Clerk 
to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Municipal Court." 

16. File 26-92-1 . [Parking Fines] Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer 
to urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to consider legislation to 
increase the penalty for street cleaning parking violations from $15 to $20. 
(Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Shelley, adopted. 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Urging the Municipal Court of 
the City and County of San Francisco to impose a minimum penalty of 
$23 within the Traffic Bail Schedule for violation of prohibited parking 
for street cleaning, pursuant to Seciton 37 (c) of the San Francisco 
Traffic Code." 



17. File 26-92-2 . [Street Sweeping] Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer 
to urge the Director of Public Works to increase the frequency of mechanical street 
sweeping in the designated downtown areas and urging that the mechanical street 
sweeping program be expanded to include additional areas. (Supervisors Shelley, 
Kennedy) 

ACTION: Amended on page 2, line 4, by deleting "by submitting". Further amended 
on page 2, by deleting line 5; and on line 6 by deleting "approval by the 
Board of Supervisors". Recommended as amended. 

18. File 217-92-1 . [Neighborhood Beautification Fund] Resolution urging the Chief 
Administrative Officer to institute a neighborhood outreach program to inform 
eligible groups of the Neighborhood Beautification Fund and to encourage them to 
apply for funding to purchase trashcans and steam-cleaning services. (Supervisors 
Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

19. File 217-92-2 . [Renter Recycling Bags] Resolution urging the Chief Administrative 
Officer to develop a component within the City's Recycling Program that would 
provide reusable bags to renters for the purpose of collecting and depositing 
recyclable materials and urging that such provision be supported by a public/private 
partnership. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Urging the Chief Administrative Officer to develop a component within 
the City's Recycling Program that would provide reusable bags, buckets 
or other mechanisms to renters for the purpose of collecting and 
depositing recyclable materials and urging that such provision be 
supported by a public/private partnership." 

20. File 217-92-3 . [Plaza Cleaning - Weekends] Resolution urging the Chief 
Administrative Officer to urge the Director of Public Works to implement cleaning 
of the United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza on weekends and holidays that fall 
on weekdays. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

21. File 217-92-4 . [Litter Prevention — Covered Trucks] Resolution urging the Mayor 
to urge the Chief of Police to enforce provisions of the California Vehicle Code 
that require vehicles transporting certain materials to be covered to prevent the 
material from spilling or falling from the vehicle. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

22. File 217-92-5 . [Public Education — Litter] Resolution urging the Mayor and the 
Chief Administrative Officer to develop a coordinated public education campaign 
which encourages merchants and residents to keep the streets clean and informs the 
public about anti-littering laws and penalties. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



23. File 217-92-6 . [Litter Reduction] Resolution urging the Chief Administrative 
Officer to urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to double the 
number of trashcans on city streets. (Supervisors Shelley, Kennedy) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Shelley, adopted. 

Recommended as amended. New title: "Urging the Chief Administrative 
Officer to urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to 
increase the number of trashcans on City streets, and to examine the 
possibility of private sector funding for that purpose." 

24. File 217-92-7 . [Recycling Bin Hours] Resolution urging the Chief Administrative 
Officer to consider introducing legislation that would limit the hours recycling bins 
may be left on the sidewalk. (Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

25. File 217-92-8 . [Illegal Dumping Fine] Resolution urging the Department of Public 
Works to consider introducing legislation increasing the fine for illegal dumping of 
refuse from $52 to $500. 

(Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole, as presented by Supervisor Shelley, adopted. 
Recommended as amended. New title: "Urging the Municipal Court of 
the City and County of San Francisco to increase the bail for illegal 
dumping of refuse from $52 to $500, and directing the Clerk of the Board 
of Supervisors to transmit a copy of this resolution to the Municipal 
Court." 

26. File 217-92-9 . [Neighborhood Litter Reduction] Resolution urging the Department 
of Public Works to direct its resources so as to reduce litter in neighborhoods that 
are most affected. (Supervisor Shelley) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



25 



h 



CITY AND COUNTY 




Pu-fi&c Library, 'Documents 'Devi. 

OFSANFR A^ eSSVfe QCITIJ 1{( 1 til 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 



BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



May 22, 1992 



/// 

Finance Committee 



TO: 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: May 27, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



DOeOMgMWI BEPT. 

may 2 & m 

5AM FRAN6ISG0 
PUBLIC LWMAftV 



Item la - File 101-90-76.1 



Department: 



Proposed Action: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Release of reserved funds previously approved for SFGH's 
Nuclear Medicine relocation construction project. The funds 
were reserved pending submission of budget details of the 
project which reflect the actual contract amount for the 
construction work and information on the MBE/WBE status 
of the contractor. 

$150,000 

Funds paid to San Francisco General Hospital by the 
Gladstone Foundation pursuant to the Foundation's lease 
agreement with SFGH. 

The Gladstone Foundation, a non-profit cardiovascular 
research institute, has leased space at San Francisco 
General Hospital (SFGH) since 1977. The Foundation 
requested in 1989 that SFGH provide the Foundation with 
additional space and the two parties agreed to negotiate a 
completely new lease. The Board of Supervisors approved 
this lease in January, 1990 (File 65-89-10). Under the terms of 
the new lease, Gladstone Foundation agreed, among other 
considerations, to pay $300,000 to SFGH at the beginning of 
the leasehold term. In return, SFGH agreed to reduce the 
Foundation's rent and utilities charges by $150,000 in fiscal 
years 1992-93 and 1993-94, for a total rent and utility reduction 
of $300,000. Gladstone Foundation and SFGH agreed to these 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1991 



terms in order for SFGH to receive a lump sum payment of 
$300,000 for two capital improvement projects. 

The first of the two capital improvement projects at SFGH is 
the renovation of Ward 24, which is located in Building 20. 
The project budget for the renovation of Ward 24 was 
approved by the Board of Supervisors as part of the initially 
requested Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File 101- 
90-76). Partially financing this budget was $150,000 of the 
$300,000 lump sum payment from Gladstone. 

The second project involves the relocation of SFGH's Nuclear 
Medicine Department to the ground floor of SFGH's main 
Hospital building. SFGH's Nuclear Medicine Department is 
currently located in the basement of Building 100. According 
to SFGH, this building does not meet the construction codes 
required of inpatient facilities and, as such, has become a 
serious licensure and accreditation issue. According to 
SFGH, it would be more efficient and less costly to move the 
Nuclear Medicine Department to the ground floor of the main 
Hospital building than to attempt to bring Building 100 up to 
the strict standards of the Hospital building codes. 

The balance of $150,000 from the $300,000 Gladstone payment 
for the Nuclear Medicine project was placed on reserve 
pending the selection of the project contractor, including the 
actual contract amount for construction work, along with 
information on the MBE/WBE status of the contractor. SFGH 
reports that the construction budget for the project is as 
follows: 

Project Budg et 

Base Construction $997,300 

Construction Contingency 395,335 

Construction Testing 5,000 
Bureau of Architecture Administration Fees 50,000 

Bureau of Architecture Inspection Fees 40 000 

Total $1,487,635 

In addition to the $150,000 of revenues from Gladstone, SFGH 
reports that the balance of $1,337,635 for the Nuclear 
Medicine project will be funded from $249,975 in State grant 
funds, $380,000 from the lease of dental space by the 
University of California, and $707,660 in General Fund 
monies, ($441,149 appropriated in the 1988-89 SFGH budget 
and $266,511 appropriated under File 101-83-4). 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1991 

Comments: 1. Mr. Philip Sowers of the Bureau of Architecture reports 

that six of the seven bids submitted for the Nuclear Medicine 
project were from firms certified by the Human Rights 
Commission as either MBE or WBE firms. The contract was 
awarded to Barnes/Lem Construction Company, a joint 
venture. Lem Construction Company has been certified as an 
MBE firm by the Human Rights Commission. Barnes 
Construction Company is neither an MBE nor WBE firm. 
Mr. Sowers reports that 51 percent of the contract will be 
performed by Lem Construction Company and 49 percent will 
be performed by Barnes Construction Company. 

2. SFGH's initial estimate of the construction cost of the 
Nuclear Medicine project was $1,339,080. The proposed 
contract for the actual work is $997,300 or $341,780 less. This 
reduced project scope has resulted in SFGH placing most of 
these funds into a Construction Contingency account which 
now totals $395,335 or approximately 40 percent of the 
construction contract. 

3. Ms. Angela Carmin of SFGH states that the Construction 
Contingency account has been budgeted at so a high a 
percentage of construction costs because the original project 
scope did not include certain required space renovations for 
which these excess funds can now be used. Ms. Carmin 
states that these additional renovations will be performed by 
the same contractor through a change order with the 
proposed contractor. The $395,335 Construction Contingency 
will be budgeted as follows: 

Contingency for Nuclear Medicine Project $114,335 

(11.5 percent of $997,300 construction contract) 

Additional Renovations 

Construction Cost Additional Improvements 120,000 

Contingency/Project Administration 60,000 

Lab Furnishings 101.000 

Total $395,335 

Recommendation: Release the $150,000 in reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item lb -File 101-91-1.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Sheriffs Department 

Request for release of a budgetary reserve of General Fund 
appropriated monies for permanent salaries obligations 
through the end of Fiscal Year 1991-92. 

$134,405 

General Fund 

The Board of Supervisors in the FY 1991-92 Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance created a reserve of $109,405 as 
follows: 



Court Security and Process 
Permanent Salaries-Misc. 
Mandatory Fringe Benefits 
Total 



$101,301 

8.104 

$109,405 



The funds were reserved because of projected attrition and 
vacancies in the Sheriffs Department that may have 
eliminated the need for permanent salary funding. 

In addition to the above funds reserved in the 1991-92 budget, 
the Board of Supervisors previously approved a supplemental 
appropriation request under Ordinance 322-91 (File 101-91-8) 
in August of 1991. This supplemental request appropriated 
$500,000 for permanent salaries, related mandatory fringe 
benefits, office supplies, and other expenses including 
$25,000, related to jail overcrowding, for contractual services. 
The outside contract was to fund one Criminal Justice 
Administration Group (CJAG) Coordinator. Release of the 
$25,000 reserve was contingent upon the Sheriffs 
Department providing the Finance Committee information 
regarding the contractor's hourly rates, estimated hours, 
and MBE/WBE status. 

The Sheriff presently reports that, based on meetings with 
the City Attorney's Office, the $25,000 will not be needed for 
the Coordinator for the balance of fiscal year 1991-92. 

The Sheriffs Department projects a $139,003 deficit in 
permanent salaries through June 30, 1992. Although there is 
no projected deficit in retirement costs, the Sheriff requests 
the full reserve of $109,405, as shown above, be released for 
permanent salaries to offset the projected deficit. The 
Sheriffs Department also requests the reserve of the $25,000 
set aside for the CJAG Coordinator be released to be used, 

BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

instead, for permanent salaries to further offset the projected 
deficit in permanent salaries. A supplemental is being 
processed by the Mayor's Office to provide the additional 
$4,598 ($139,003 deficit less $134,405 from this request) needed 
to offset the remaining deficit. 

Comments: 1. The Budget Analyst's analysis of this subject request is as 

follows: 

Revised Appropriation for Permanent Salaries $22,946,107* 
Revised Appropriation for Mandatory Fringe 

Benefits (MFB) 2.086.824 ** 

Funds Available $25,032,931 
Less: Actual expenditures for Permanent 

Salaries and MFB through 4/10/92*** (19,441,452) 
Projected expenditures from 4/11/92 through 

6/30/92 (5.671.107) 

Projected Shortfall ($79,628) 

Amount Requested 134.405 

Amount of Requested Funds not needed $54,777 

* Excludes $101,301 in reserved funds. 

** Excludes $8,104 in reserved funds. 

*** 20.4 of 26.2 pay periods. 

2. The Sheriffs Department has expended approximately 
$953,012 per pay period for Permanent Salaries and related 
mandatory fringe benefits for the first 20.4 pay periods of FY 
1991-92. Using the sum of $953,012 per pay period, the 
Department would require a total of $5,527,470 for Permanent 
Salaries and related mandatory fringe benefits for the 5.8 
remaining pay periods in FY 1991-92. However, the 
Department reports that it needs the $5,671,107 projected 
above, as a minimum, because of additional payments of 
approximately $400 per Sheriffs Deputy for premium pay, in 
accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding, that 
resulted in an expenditure of approximately $168,000 that is 
not included in the actual expenditure amount shown above, 
and because of a supplemental appropriation in November of 
1991 authorizing an additional 14 positions, thereby requiring 
additional salary monies. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Recommendations: 1. Release the reserved funding in the amount of $79,628. Do 
not release funding in the amount of $54,777 on reserve. 

2. Direct a letter to the Controller requesting that the $54,777 
in unneeded monies be returned to the General Fund. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item lc - File 100-91-1.28 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description; 



Department of Public Health 

Request for release of $97,200 for temporary salaries at 
various AIDS Health Centers, reserved during fiscal year 
1991-92 budget hearings pending a report to the Finance 
Committee concerning the nature of the services to be 
provided. 

$97,200 

General Fund 

During fiscal year 1991-92 budget hearings, the Finance 
Committee appropriated $160,757 for temporary salaries for 
the AIDS Health Centers, but placed $97,200 of this amount 
on reserve pending a description of the positions and 
services to be funded. 

DPH is now requesting release of the $97,200 of reserve 
funds to compensate one Physician Specialist, one 
Registered Nurse, and one Nurse Practitioner who are 
providing health services to HIV-positive individuals 
through the City's District Health Centers. 

Since January 1992, DPH has expended $38,428 to pay 
salary costs for these positions in excess of the $63,557 
($160,757 appropriated less $97,200 reserved) originally 
allocated for temporary salaries. 

DPH is requesting release of the $97,200 placed on reserve 
because it has overspent its allocation for temporary 
salaries by $38,428 and to fund the positions for the 
remainder of the fiscal year. 



Comments 



1. Ms. Janet Murphy of the DPH Administrative Services 
Unit states that the three employees whose salaries would 
be paid with these funds have been employed in their 
current capacities since prior to the FY 1991-92 budget 
hearings. Ms. Murphy is uncertain why the funds were 
placed on reserve, since there were no changes from the 
prior year in the nature of the duties performed by these 
individuals. 

2. Ms. Murphy states that the duties performed by the 
employees are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



The Physician Specialist (at 64% FTE) is employed at 
District Health Center No. 1 on 17th Street in the Castro 
District, where this physician provides primary health care 
services to HIV-positive individuals. The Health Center 
has more than 1,000 patients and the caseload is expected to 
increase by another 250 persons during the next 12 months. 

The Registered Nurse is employed at Health Center No. 2 at 
1301 Pierce Street in the Western Addition, and also 
provides primary care to HIV-positive individuals. 

The Nurse Practitioner "floats" among Health Centers 2, 3, 
4, and 5 and provides services to women and children with 
HrV, including family planning counseling for women at 
high risk for HIV, perinatal services for women with HP/, 
and treatment of children with HIV. 

3. In addition to these temporary positions, the AIDS 
Health Centers unit of the DPH budget includes three 
permanent health professionals. These are a Physician 
Specialist assigned to Health Center No. 1, a Registered 
Nurse assigned to Health Center No. 1, and a Public Health 
Nurse who acts as a liaison for AIDS services provided at 
Health Centers 2, 3, 4, and 5. The Public Health Nurse 
assists health care personnel at these health centers in 
meeting the medical needs of patients with HIV, makes 
referrals to community-based agencies, and accepts and 
evaluates referrals from San Francisco General Hospital. 

4. The annual salary costs of the three temporary 
employees, based on information provided by DPH, are as 
follows: 

Salary 
Position @StepV FTE Amount 

2230 Physician Specialist $81,276 .64 $52,017 

2320 Registered Nurse 52,421 1.00 52,421 

2328 Nurse Practitioner 63,194 1.00 63.194 

Total $167,632 

Ms. Murphy states that fringe benefits are excluded from 
DPH estimates of these personnel costs because fringe 
benefits for these individuals have been paid from a 
separate account, using surplus funds available as a result 
of the City's hiring freeze which took effect in October 1991. 
Ms. Murphy indicates that sufficient funds are available to 
pay fringe benefits associated with these three temporary 
positions for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



-8 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



5. DPH has expended a total of $101,977 in temporary 
salaries for the AIDS Health Centers since the beginning of 
the fiscal year. DPH first expended $63,549 of the $63,557 in 
budgeted funds which were allocated for AIDS Health 
Centers during the budget hearings. In addition, DPH has 
expended a total of $38,428, through April 24, 1992, in excess 
of the funds allocated for these positions. Thus, DPH has 
paid compensation of $101,977 ($63,549 + $38,428) for these 
positions through April 24, 1992, which is 82.1 percent of the 
fiscal year (21.5 pay periods through April 24, 1992 is 82.1 
percent of 26.2 pay periods for the fiscal year). 

However, the amount paid so far this year ($101,977) 
represents only 60.8 percent of the estimated annual salary 
cost presented in Comment No. 4 above, which was 
provided by DPH. 

Based on actual year to date payments of $101,977 over 82.1 
percent of the fiscal year, the Budget Analyst estimates that 
funds are required in the amount of $22,234 to sustain the 
same level of service over the remainder (17.9 percent) of the 
fiscal year ($101,977 is 82.1 percent of an annual salary cost 
of $124,211). In addition, DPH has already expended $38,428 
of the reserved funds for temporary salaries which has not 
yet been approved by the Finance Committee. 

Thus, to continue the services of the temporary employees 
for the remainder of the fiscal year, and to reimburse the 
Department for using funds from the salary reserves, 
release of reserved funds would be necessary as follows: 

Continued services 

(17.9 percent of FY @ $124,21iy y ear) $22,234 

Excess expenditures not yet approved 

by the Finance Committee 38.428 

Total: $60,662 

Recommendation: In light of the use of funds for expenditures for temporary 
salaries by DPH, not yet approved by the Finance 
Committee, approval of the request for release of reserve 
funds is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

If the request is approved, the Budget Analyst recommends 
that funds be released in the amount of $60,662, rather than 
in the amount of $97,200 which was requested, and that the 
Controller be requested to return the balance of the funds 
placed on reserve, in the amount of $36,538, to the General 
Fund. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item Id - File 101-91-66 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Comments: 






Police Department 

Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance for other current 
services (relocation expenses) and reducing $10,000 from 
other contractual services, Police Department - Office of 
Citizen Complaints for Fiscal Year 1991-92. 

$10,000 

Reappropriation of previously budgeted General Fund 
monies for Other Contractual Services. 

The proposed supplemental appropriation funds would be 
used for the relocation expenses (moving) from Washington, 
D.C. to San Francisco of the new Director of the Office of 
Citizen Complaints (OCC). The OCC reports that it has 
sufficient funds in its other contractual services 1991-92 
budget to pay for these relocation costs. 

1. According to Ms. Irene Raposa of the Police Department, 
all of the proposed $10,000 would pay for the one-time moving 
costs for the new Director of the OCC to move from 
Washington, D.C. to San Francisco. Ms. Raposa reports that 
thus far, approximately $4,500 has been incurred for moving 
expenses, including contracting with a moving company. 
Therefore, because obligations for these moving expenses 
have been incurred prior to the Board of Supervisors approval 
of the proposed ordinance, the proposed ordinance should be 
amended to authorize the expenditure of $4,500 of these funds 
retroactively. 

2. Ms. Raposa reports that the Director was advised by the 
Police Commission, prior to her employment with the City 
and County of San Francisco, that the Police Commission 
would make every attempt to have the City pay the Director 
for her moving expenses. However, this advice was given 
prior to the Board of Supervisors consideration and approval 
of the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance. Ms. 
Raposa also reports that the OCC has had recruiting 
difficulties in finding qualified candidates for this position. 
Ms. Raposa states that the Director has indicated that she 
will be unable to pay for her relocation costs from personal 
funds, and if the City does not pay for such costs, then 
according to Ms. Raposa, the Director will not serve as the 
Director of the San Francisco Office of Citizen Complaints, 
and she would continue to work in the Washington, D.C. 
area. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



3. A former Director of Public Health, Dr. Marvin 
Silverman, similarly was told that the City would pay for his 
moving expenses, as a condition of employment, when he 
relocated to San Francisco. However, the Board of 
Supervisors denied his request to pay for his moving costs. 

4. As of the writing of this report, the City Attorney's Office 
did not have a comment on the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance, which would authorize 
expenditures for moving expenses which were promised to a 
person prior to her employment with the City and County of 
San Francisco. 

Recommendations: Based upon Comment No. 3 above, and pending an opinion 
from the City Attorney's Office, approval of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance, which would provide 
funds for relocation expenses for the Director of the Office of 
Citizen Complaints (OCC), is a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Based on the fact that $4,500 has already been incurred for 
moving costs, if the Board of Supervisors decides to approve 
this request, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
authorize the expenditure of $4,500 of these funds 
retroactively. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item le - File 25-92-15 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Board of Supervisors 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that computer programming services can be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar services performed by the City and County of San 
Francisco. 



Computer programming services for the legislative index 
system. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
computer programming services in fiscal year 1992-93 
would result in estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 


Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


Programmer Costs 


$5,906 


$6,891 


Contracted Service Cost 
(See Comment No. 6) 


5.015 


6,185 


Estimated Savings 


$891 


$706 



1. Fiscal year 1992-93 would be the first fiscal year that 
computer programming services are being certified as 
required by Charter Section 8.300-1 at the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Mr. John Taylor, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, 
advises that the Clerk's Office seeks the Board's 
authorization to contract with Newcomputing, a City- 
certified WBE, for fiscal year 1992-93 to perform these 
computer programming services. 

3. Ms. Violeta Mosuela of the Clerk's Office advises that the 
Clerk's Office presently has a contract with Newcomputing 
for technical writing services for the period April, 1992 
through September, 1992 (for which the Clerk's Office 
secured Civil Service approval), but does not currently have 
a computer programming contract with this WBE. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



4. Mr. Erasmo Vasquez of the Clerk's Office advises that 
the computer programming services which Newcomputing 
proposes to perform for the Clerk's Office constitutes a one- 
time contract with an estimated duration of three months 
(June 1, 1992 through August 31, 1992). 

5. Ms. Judy Johnston of the Controller's Information 
Services Division (ISD) advises that the City Operated 
Service Costs are based on an hourly rate of $49.22 which 
ISD computer programmers charge other City departments 
for their services, and that this $49.22 includes salaries, 
fringe benefits, overhead costs and the cost of supplies for 
fiscal year 1991-92. 

Mr. Dan McDonald of the ISD has provided the Controller's 
Office with an estimated City Operated Service Cost ranging 
from a low estimate of 120 hours of programming time 
($49.22 x 120 hours = $5,906) to a high estimate of 140 hours 
($49.22 x 140 hours = $6,891). Mr. McDonald advises that 
the fiscal year 1991-92 hourly rate was used because the 
fiscal year 1992-93 hourly has not yet been determined. 

6. The contract costs were based on the computer 
programming bid presented by Newcomputing, which 
reflects $100 per hour for 4 hours of consulting and 
analysis, and $65 per hour for programming, documenting 
and training duties, with a low estimate of 71 hours of 
programming time ($400 + ($65 x 71 hours ) = $5,015) and a 
high estimate of 89 hours of programming time ($400 + ($65 
x 89 hours) = $6,185). 

7. Mr. Greg Hobson advises that the Clerk's Office 
anticipates that there will be additional contracts for 
computer programming services besides the programming 
related to the legislative index during fiscal year 1992-93. 
Mr. Hobson reports that funds have been allocated in the 
Clerk's Office's fiscal year 1992-93 budget for the legislative 
index computer programming contractual work. 

8. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

13 



CHARTER 8.300-1 (Prop osit in n J) QUESTIONNAIRE 



Department Board of Supervisors 






Contract Services Computer Programming 

For the term starting approximately June 1, 1992 through August 31, 1992 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

This is a one-time task. Thus, no one has performed this work. 
Controller's Information Services Division oeeassionally performs similar 
services, and will continue to perform same on other departmental 
projects of smaller scope. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting out? 
None. 

3) Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off 

Not applicable, since not city employees were performing this work. 



4) What percent of a City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

None. Services contracted out amount to around three (3) person-weeks. 



5) How long have the services been contracted out? 
This is a one-time contract. 

6) When was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J certification? 
Not applicable. This is a one-time contract. 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE Action Plan? 
Contractor selected is a WBE firm. 



CAhp>~< Cm 



DepartmerK./ReR$sentative 

fry- yi*i 

Telephone 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item If - File 25-92-16 



Department: 

Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Port of San Francisco 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that janitorial services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar work performed by City employees. 



Janitorial services at the Ferry Building/World Trade 
Center, and surrounding areas, the Agricultural Building, 
the Cruise Ship Terminal, and at various Port piers. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
janitorial services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 

Employee Benefits 
Subtotal 

Operating Expenses 
Total 

Contracte d Service Cost 

Estimated Saving s 



1. Janitorial services were first certified as required by 
Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1982 and have been provided by an 
outside contractor since 1979. 

2. Mr. Jeff Bauer of the Port advises that the current 
contracts for janitorial services, which expire September 30, 
1992, are with three firms, Fairway Janitorial Services (a 
City-certified MBE and LBE); Lewis & Taylor (a City- 
certified MBE and LBE); and Custodial Janitorial Services 
(a City-certified MBE and LBE). 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


$399,111 

106.053 

$505,164 


$483,779 

123.622 

$607,401 


35.175 
$540,339 


35.175 
$642,576 


401.732 


401.732 


$138,607 


$240,844 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



3. Ms. Dorothy Schimke of the Port reports that the Port's 
janitorial services will continue to be provided by the 
current contractors (Fairway Janitorial Services, Lewis & 
Taylor, and Custodial Janitorial Services) in fiscal year 
1992-93. The Contracted Service Cost used for the purpose of 
this analysis is based on the Port's fiscal year 1991-92 
janitorial contracts, plus a 5 percent cost of living increase. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



MPY 19 <92 15 = 27 TOg^SJ^, f prnftMii< xw J) QUESTION NAIRE P.3/3 

^rtment: ^ Commission ___ For «- Period: P. *■ 92-93 

Contract Services: Janitoria l Services 

1) who performed services ^£*f *» -SS^J^'oeSSitl.O at the 

The services were performed by Cxjy J*^* ^ J janitor 

SSi" SSrS'lJ Peopled pr^to^e wor* beino 
contracted out in November 1979. 

2) Kumbex of City employe laid off as result of contracting 

depts . 

31 Explain disposition of employees if they were not laid off. 
Si were rehired in other City departments durir.Q 1979/80. 

4) what percent of a City employee's time is spent on services 
to be contracted out? (inft ., 

11 custodians - 2708 100*} moo*> 
1 Custodian Assistant W*^*" " ^ 16 <100t) 
l Custodian Supervisor - 2718 (100%) 

5) How long have the services been contracted out? 
Since 1979. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBS/WBE 

TS^orfnas divided janitorial service, Into segments that 
can be individually bid. This will enhance the opportunity 
for minority, women and small businces enterprises to 
successfully compete for these contracts. MBE firms 
currently perform these services. 




Michael Janis; Director 
Tenant Services Division 

Telephone: 274.-0404 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item lg - File 25-92-17 



Department: 

Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Port of San Francisco 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that security guard services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar work performed by City employees. 



Security guard services at the Ferry Building/World Trade 
Center, Agricultural Building, Port public parking 
facilities and various piers. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
security guard services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result 
in estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 

Salaries 

Employee Benefits 
Subtotal 

Operating Expenses 
Total 

Contracte d Service Cost 

Estimated Saving s 



1. Security guard services were first certified as required by 
Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1983 and have been provided by an 
outside contractor since 1976. 

2. The current contract, which expires August 31, 1992, is 
with Cal-State Patrol Services, a City-certified Minority 
Business Enterprise (MBE and LBE). Ms. Dorothy Schimke 
of the Port advises that the Contracted Service Cost used for 
the purpose of this analysis is based on Cal-State Patrol 
Services' fiscal year 1991-92 contract, plus a 5% inflationary 
adjustment. 

3. Mr. Jeff Bauer of the Port reports that the fiscal year 
1992-93 contract for the Port's security guard services will 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


$276,982 

72,966 

$349,948 


$327,242 

83,395 
$410,637 


8.809 
$358,757 


8.809 
$419,446 


147.000 


147.000 


$211,757 


$272,446 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



lft 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



be awarded through a competitive bid process, which will be 
facilitated by the City's Purchasing Department. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



P. 2/3 
charter a .300-1 (Proposition J ) questionnaire 

Jepartment: Port Co mmission For Time Period: F. Y. 92-93 

Contract Services: seourj ty Services Contract Term: 

1 ) Who performed services prior to cuni.racting out? 
Security Services were performed by patrol Officers ptior 
to 1975. These were former state of California employees 
transitioned to City service when the Port was transferred 
to the City's jurisdiction in 1969. 

2) Number of City employees laid off as result of contracting 
out? 

No employees are adversely affected as a result of this 
contract. 

3) Explain disposition of employees if tney wete not laid off. 
The former Harbor Patrol officers were transferred to the 
Sheriff's Office in 1975. Several subsequently have become 
Q-2 Police Officers in the S.F.P.D. None were displaced. 

4) what percent of a City employee's time is spent on services 
to be contracted out? 

The cost comparison is based upon a hypothetical City work 
force of seven and one half Building & Crounds Patrol 
Officers. This represents a very conservative estimate of 
the number of Ci ty employees needed to cover the 294 hours 
of service provided by the contractor each week. 

5) how long have the services been contracted out? 
Since 1976. 

6) what w«s the first fiscal year for a Proposition .1 
Certification? 

Fiscal Year 83-84. 

7) How will contract services meet l.he goals of your MBE/WBB 
Action Plan? 

In the past the low bidder on this contract has been a 
minority or woman-owned business. If this Prop J 
certification is approved and an MBE or WDE-owned businese 
is the low bidder, it will contribute significantly townrd 
the City's compliance wiLh the provisions of 12D at the 
Administrative Code. 

~ /> 

?.hap.l Janis, Oil" .^Tenant Services 
Department Representative 

Telephone: 274-0404 




20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item lh - File 25-92-18 

Department: Real Estate Department 



Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 



Description: 



Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that stationary engineering services can be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar services performed by the City and County of San 
Francisco. 



Stationary engineering services for the Real Estate 
Department at 25 Van Ness Avenue. 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
stationary engineering services in fiscal year 1992-93 would 
result in estimated savings as follows: 



Comments: 



City Operated Service Costs 

Direct Labor Costs 
Indirect Labor Costs 
Total 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Savings 



$20,943 

20.293 

$41,236 

38,48Q 

$2,756 



1. Mr. Lloyd Gardner of the Real Estate Department 
advises that since the City purchased an office building 
located at 25 Van Ness Avenue in October, 1991, 1992-93 
would be the first fiscal year that stationary engineering 
services are certified as required by Charter Section 8.300-1 
at 25 Van Ness Avenue. 

2. Mr. Gardner advises that since October 23, 1991, the 
City has had three stationary engineering contracts with 
the following firms or individuals: Mr. Mike Pizani (the 
original building stationary engineer); DKB Engineering, 
and Greco Engineering Management, Inc. Mr. Gardner 
reports that initially, he communicated with both the 
Purchasing Department and the Civil Service Commission 
and was told that it was appropriate for the Real Estate 
Department to develop a short-term personal services 
contract with the stationary engineering contractor 
through the end of fiscal year 1991-92. Thereafter, Mr. 

BOARD OF SUPER VISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Gardner was advised that it was most appropriate to 
request Proposition J approval for contracting for stationary 
engineering services in fiscal year 1992-93. 

3. The current contract, which expires June 30, 1992, is 
with Greco Engineering Management, Inc., which is 
neither a City-certified MBE, WBE nor LBE firm at the 
present time. Mr. Gardner reports that at the time of this 
writing, Greco Engineering Management is in the process 
of becoming a City-certified WBE. 

4. Mr. Gardner advises that the Real Estate and 
Purchasing Departments are in the initial stages of 
discussing whether to award the stationary engineer 
contract for fiscal year 1992-93 through a competitive bid 
process or to develop a term purchase agreement. Mr. Bill 
Jones of the Purchasing Department advises that the Real 
Estate Department has not yet submitted specifications for 
the stationary engineering services at 25 Van Ness Avenue, 
and that the Purchasing Department will follow the City's 
Human Rights Commission guidelines for ensuring that 
the Real Estate Department follows its MBE/WBE action 
plan. 

5. The Contracted Service Cost used for the purpose of this 
analysis is based on Greco Engineering Management's 
estimated cost of providing services for fiscal year 1992-93 
($37 per hour x 1,040 hours per year = $38,480). Out of the 
gross floor area of 147,876 square feet, the 25 Van Ness 
Avenue office building contains 136,089 rentable square feet. 

7. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation; Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



FROM:SF REAL ESTATE DEPT TO: 415 252 0461 MAY 19, 1992 10:05AM »74i p. 02 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

r>^^ a r--r ng .nr Raal Estate 

Contract Services. g&fi£jgaaSg Engine; 
Time Period FY92-93 _ — 

1, Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

1) too peri o stationary Contracts. 
Preaantly'-e are "log services o£ Gteco Engineering Manage»ent Inc. 

2) »*t of City empldyees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? _ . 

3, Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

N/A 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on series to be 
contracted out"? 

- - 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

Since 10-23-91 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 

Certification? 
FY 92-93 

„ how will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 
services to be bid out by Purchasing with B.R.C. approval 



■& A£ 



Departatetft Representative 

/tv^h r.ardner. Real Property Officer 
^ (Tvoe Name, Title) 



(Typ< 
554-9862 
telephone 

cxlquespj 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item li -File 28-92-7 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 
Bureau of Water Pollution Control 

Resolution approving emergency expenditure to perform the 
necessary work to replace the damaged ceramic fiber 
insulation on the waste gas flares at the Southeast Water 
Pollution Control Plant with high temperature insulating 
brick. 

$51,150 

Sewer Service Charge Revenues (Clean Water Operating 
Fund) 

The DPW reports that the ceramic fiber insulation on one of 
the two waste gas flares at the Southeast Water Pollution 
Control Plant fell off during the week of March 16, 1992. As a 
result of the disintegration of the insulation, the DPW has 
been forced to shut down the one uninsulated flare and to run 
its one remaining insulated flare at a lower, suboptimal 
temperature. This has resulted in the release of odorous 
sulphur compounds into the atmosphere. A second 
alternative would have been for the DPW to run its insulated 
flare at the optimum temperature (about 1400 to 1600 degrees 
Fahrenheit), which would result in the release of large 
amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. A third 
alternative would have been for the DPW to to run its 
insulated flare at a higher than optimum temperature (about 
2000 degrees Fahrenheit), which would result in the 
destruction of the insulation in the flares and eventually the 
collapse of the metal stack. Therefore, the existing condition 
and the two alternatives for dealing with the emergency 
condition are both unfavorable and harmful to the City's 
public health. To prevent further damage to the flares and 
the danger of explosion, the ceramic fiber insulation must be 
replaced with high temperature insulating brick in both 
waste gas flares. 

In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative Code, 
the DPW began emergency repair work on the ceramic fiber 
insulation on the waste gas flares on May 11, 1992, according 
to Mr. Jon Loiacono of the DPW. The total cost of the repairs 
is $51,150, pursuant to a lump sum contract between the 
DPW and the contractor. The contractor performing the 
emergency repair work estimates that the repairs will be 
completed by approximately June 5, 1992. Mr. Loiacono 
reports that the contractor completed work on one flare on 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Comments: 



May 20, 1992. Besides the $51,150 for contractual services, the 
DPW estimates the DPW has spent $15,000 to $20,000 of staff 
time addressing the emergency condition. The DPW will pay 
staff for work on the emergency condition from its regular 
operating budget. 

1. In accordance with Section 6.30 of the Administrative 
Code, the DPW, on an expedited basis, awarded the contract 
for emergency repair work on the ceramic fiber insulation to 
Dee Engineering on April 24, 1992. Dee Engineering is 
neither a MBE nor WBE firm. 



2. Mr. John Cribbs, Director of the DPW, declared that an 
emergency condition existed on April 24, 1992. 

3. Mr. Henry Gee of the DPW advises that the $51,150 for 
contractual services is from the Sewer Service Charge 
(Funding Group 35/001, which is the Clean Water Operating 
Fund) under the subcategories "Other Contractual Services" 
and "Other Equipment and Maintenance." 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item li -File 38-92-7.1 



Department: Mayor's Office 

Item: Resolution authorizing the Mayor's Office to accept a gift of 

miscellaneous computer equipment valued at $36,680, from 
the San Francisco Foundation for use by the Mayor's Budget 
Office and the Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and 
Development. 

Amount: Computer equipment valued at $36,680 

Description The Mayor's Office recently solicited donations for the 

purchase of computer equipment and software needed to 
enhance the fiscal and economic analysis capabilities in the 
Mayor's Budget Office and Office of Economic Planning and 
Development. On behalf of the Mayor's Office, funds donated 
for this purpose were deposited in an account (The San 
Francisco Government Efficiency Fund) set up and 
administered by the San Francisco Foundation. As of April 
30, 1992, the San Francisco Foundation had received 
donations totalling $118,500, from fifteen separate businesses, 
which were deposited to this Fund (see Attachment). These 
donations have been utilized by the San Francisco Foundation 
to purchase the computer equipment and software for the 
Mayor's Office. 

The Board of Supervisors has previously approved legislation 
authorizing the Mayor's Office to accept computer equipment 
valued at $80,609, from the San Francisco Foundation, for the 
first phase of this project (Resolution No. 144-92). The 
proposed resolution would authorize the Mayor's Office to 
accept a second gift of computer equipment valued at $36,680, 
for a total gift amount valued at $117,289. 

The computer equipment and software valued at $36,680, is 
detailed below: 



Computer File Server (1) $5,870 

Concentrator for Server (1) 1,600 

Memory Hardware (1) 3,600 

Network Software (1) 2,600 

Personal Computers (4) 11,600 

Memory Upgrade (1) 840 

Laser Printer (1) 1,600 

Tape Backup (1) 2,100 
UPS (uninterruptible power supply) (1) 370 

Miscellaneous Software and Cables 3,500 

Installation and Training 3.000 
Total $36,680 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Comment: The Mayor's Office reports that the estimated cost to 

purchase the entire amount of computer equipment and 
software needed by the Mayor's Budget Office and Office of 
Economic Planning and Development is $150,000, which is 
$31,500 more than the $118,500 donated as of April 30, 1992. 
Ms. Eila Arbuckle of the Mayor's Office advises that the 
$150,000 estimated cost for the computer equipment and 
software needed for the Mayor's Office was based on the 
"ideal" circumstance of having a comprehensive computer 
network in both the Mayor's Budget Office and Office of 
Economic Planning and Development. According to Ms. 
Arbuckle the $118,500 already donated will permit the 
completion of the computer network project in the Mayor's 
Budget Office, but will not be sufficient to complete the 
computer network in the Office of Economic Planning and 
Development. Ms. Arbuckle advises that it is unknown as to 
whether or not additional donations will be made to the San 
Francisco Government Efficiency Fund. Ms. Arbuckle adds 
that the Mayor's Office has not, at this time, identified any 
other source of funding for this project. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Attachment 



SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY 
IN THE SAN FRANCISCO GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY FUND 
ADMINISTERED BY THE SAN FRANCISCO FOUNDATION 
as of April 30, 1992 



SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY 

$118,500 Total Contributions at April 30, 1992 

($80,609) Phase 1 purchases 

($36,680) Phase 2 purchases 

$1/211 Account balance at April 30, 1992 

CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE 
Contribution Donor 



$5,000 AT&T 

$10,000 Bank of America 

$2,000 Blue Shield of California 

$32,000 Building Owners & Managers Association 
of San Francisco 

$5,000 Catellus Development Corporation 

$1,000 Charles Schwab & Co. 

$10,000 Chevron 

$10,000 Kransco Group Companies 

$5,000 McKesson 

$10,000 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

$10,000 Pacific Telesis 

$1,000 Shaklee Corporation 

$5,000 The Gap 

$5,000 Transamerica 

$7,500 Wells Fargo Corporation 

$118,500 Total Contributions at April 30, 1992 



78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item Ik - File 38-92-14 

Department: San Francisco Public Library 

Item: Resolution authorizing acceptance of a gift to the San 

Francisco Public Library of a bookmobile from the Friends of 
the San Francisco Public Library. 

Amount: Valued at $113,000 

Description The Friends of the San Francisco Public Library have raised 

funds for the purchase of a bookmobile through the 
solicitation of large and small donations and grants from 
many individuals and organizations. The Public Library 
reports that the bookmobile would be wheelchair accessible 
and primarily serve elderly persons in senior centers and 
residences. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Gloria Hansen of the Public Library, the 

Public Library currently has one bookmobile in operation. 
However, Ms. Hansen reports that because the currently 
operational vehicle is older and requires substantial 
maintenance, the Public Library intends to replace this 
existing bookmobile with the new bookmobile, for which the 
proposed resolution would authorize the Public Library to 
receive. 

2. Mr. Richard Walsh of the Public Library reports that the 
current projected maintenance costs for the existing 
bookmobile are approximately $5,600 annually. Mr. Walsh 
anticipates that the new bookmobile would only require 
gasoline, oil and periodic inspections which would cost a 
maximum of $2,800 annually during the initial years, or 
$2,800 less the existing maintenance costs of $5,600 annually. 

3. Given that the Public Library intends to replace the 
existing bookmobile with the new bookmobile. Ms. Hansen 
reports that there would be no additional staff required to 
operate the new bookmobile. 

4. Ms. Hansen indicates that the Public Library anticipates 
that the existing bookmobile would be auctioned through the 
Purchasing Department, and any proceeds would be put into 
the General Fund. However, the Public Library was unable 
to estimate the amount of proceeds that would likely be 
received. 

Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 11 - File 38-92-15 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 



Description: 



Comment: 



San Francisco Public Library 

Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a cash gift from the 
Library Foundation of San Francisco for videotape 
preservation services and equipment, to be used to clean and 
reformat the Peter Adair Videotape Collection already 
donated to the Library's Gay/Lesbian Center. 

$18,962 

The Public Library is currently planning the establishment of 
a Gay/Lesbian Center to be located in the new Main Library 
scheduled to open in 1995. In October, 1991, the work of San 
Francisco filmmaker Peter Adair was donated to the Public 
Library, including materials gathered during the creation of 
the film "Word is Out," which provides a unique and 
unparalleled portrayal of the lives of gay men and lesbians in 
San Francisco and the United States during the mid-1970s. 
These previously donated materials by Mr. Adair includes 
archival videotapes, transcripts, and other materials 
associated with this film, including interviews with 200 
individuals beyond those seen in the film. 

The Public Library reports that these materials require 
archival cleaning and the videotapes require reformatting 
from their current obsolete video format to today's standard 
use. The proposed cash gift of $18,962 would be used for 
Public Library staff to complete the cleaning and 
reformatting of these videotapes. After cleaning and 
reformatting, the Library would provide high-quality 
archival copies of these materials and videotapes to the 
public. 

According to Ms. Kathy Page of the Public Library, the 
proposed cash gift which would be donated to the Public 
Library would fund the one time cost of cleaning and 
reformatting the Peter Adair Videotape Collection. Ms. Page 
reports that existing part-time Public Library staff would 
complete this proposed project. In addition, Ms. Page 
estimates that no additional costs would be incurred by the 
Public Library for the maintenance of these materials once 
the cleaning and reformatting is complete. 



Recommendation Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item lm - File 38-92-1 fi 

Department: San Francisco Public Library 



Item: 



Amount: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution authorizing acceptance of a gift from the Library 
Foundation of San Francisco for books, periodicals, 
manuscripts, correspondence and photographs from the 
collection of Barbara Grier and Donna McBride, to be donated 
to the Library's Gay/Lesbian Center. 

Valued at $400,000 

The Public Library is currently planning the establishment of 
a Gay/Lesbian Center to be located in the new Main Library 
scheduled to open in 1995. The purpose of this center is to 
record, highlight and celebrate the lives, achievements and 
contributions of the City's gay and lesbian community. The 
proposed resolution would authorize the Public Library to 
accept materials from the collection of Barbara Grier and 
Donna McBride, consisting of a 4,375 volume collection of 
literature dealing with gay and lesbian themes to be used at 
the Gay/Lesbian Center. 

1. According to Ms. Kathy Page of the Public Library, the 
Public Library would use existing part-time staff to complete 
the cataloguing services for the proposed gift collection. As 
outlined in the proposed resolution, the Library Foundation of 
San Francisco has budgeted funds to be donated at a later 
date to cover the costs for such part-time employees to 
perform these cataloging services for the Public Library in 
order that this collection is preserved and made available for 
the public. The acceptance of the subsequent cash gift to 
cover the costs to the Public Library to preserve this collection 
would be subject to future approval by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Ms. Page anticipates that no other additional costs would 
be incurred by the Public Library for the acceptance of this 
collection, other than the cataloguing costs, which as noted 
above, would be donated by the Library Foundation as a 
separate cash gift at a later date. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item In - File 130-92-1 



Department 

Item: 



Amount: 



Adult Probation and Juvenile Probation Departments 

Resolution authorizing the Adult Probation Department and 
Juvenile Probation Department to retroactively apply for, 
accept and expend $140,273 in funds from the State of 
California Board of Corrections for the Standards and 
Training of Local Corrections and Probation Officers 
Program; stipulating adherence to standards of recruitment 
and training established by the Board of Corrections, and 
waiving any indirect costs. 

$140,273 



Grant Period: July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 

Source of Funds: State of California Board of Corrections 

Project: Standards and Training of Local Corrections and Probation 

Officers Program 

Description: The proposed subvention would fund State mandated 

training for Corrections and Probation Officers in the Adult 
Probation and Juvenile Probation Departments. The 
program is operated by the State Board of Corrections and 
provides funds to improve and standardize the skills of 
Deputy Sheriff jail staff and Probation Officers, from entry- 
level staff to department heads. SB 924 authorized the State 
Board of Corrections to establish minimum standards for the 
selection and training of Deputy Sheriff jail staff and 
Probation Officers and to certify the training courses to be 
taken by personnel participating in this program. 

The proposed subvention would fund a total of 307 personnel 
during the 1992-93 Fiscal Year. Total training hours would 
be 16,220 and would range from 24 hours of training for 
update training for experienced personnel to 200 hours of 
training for new personnel. Training costs are paid by this 
subvention and no matching funds are required. 

The major subject areas of training are listed below: 

Juvenile Counselor Staff 

Security and supervision of minors 

Fire safety, crisis intervention and hostage situations 

Emergency procedures 

Supervision of special inmates 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Line Probation Officers 

Statutory, Case and Administrative Law 

Laws relating to justice system procedures of Police, District 

Attorney, Courts and Probation Services 
Handling of victims and witnesses 
Confidentiality and client rights 
Community resources 
Time and caseload management 
Interviewing techniques 
Report writing 
Diagnostic and counseling techniques and cultural 

awareness 

Supervisory. Administrative Personnel 

Managing personnel problems 

Supervisory skills 

Legal aspects of personnel supervision 

Budgeting, accounting and fiscal management techniques 

Stress management 

Communication skills 

Legal updates (cases, statutory, administrative law) 

Applied management models 

Information systems 

Cost effectiveness analysis 

Community relations 



No. of Persons 
Served: 


Training for 307 personnel 








Project 
Budget 

Dept. 


Siaff 


Hours 


Tuition 


Travel 


Per 
Diem 


Salary 
Replacement Total 


Adult 
Probation 


109 


6,720 


$34,546 


$4,123 


$5,942 


$5^35 $49,946 


Juvenile 
Probation 


198 


9.500 


$45,400 


$17,400 


$13,700 


$13,827 $90,327 


Grand Total 307 


16,220 


$79,946 


$21,523 


$19,642 


$19,162 $140,273 


Indirect Costs: 


None. 


The State '. 


Departmt 


;nt of Corrections 


requires that all 



funds be used for direct training services. 



Required Match: None 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



W 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Comments: 1. The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 

(File 152-92-1) authorizing the Sheriffs Department to apply 
for training funds in the amount of $166,622 in fiscal year 
1992-93 under SB 924 in May, 1992. According to Ms. Gail 
Goldman of the Adult Probation Department, the Adult 
Probation Department applied on behalf of the Adult 
Probation and Juvenile Probation Departments for the 
proposed grant on April 15, 1992. Ms. Goldman reports that 
the Sheriffs Department decided to apply separately for the 
proposed grant so that it could submit its application earlier 
(in past years, the Sheriffs Department, Adult Probation 
Department and Juvenile Probation Department submitted 
one joint proposal to the State of California Board of 
Corrections for these training funds). Therefore, the 
proposed resolution has been worded so as to authorize the 
Adult Probation and Juvenile Probation Departments to apply 
for the proposed grant retroactively. 

2. Ms. Goldman reports that the costs of compliance with the 
proposed State mandated training would be fully reimbursed 
by the State Department of Corrections and no additional 
costs, other than the City's indirect costs, would be incurred 
by the City. As reflected in the above budget, the State would 
reimburse the City for travel, per diem, tuition, and salary 
replacement for the cost of replacing staff while in training. 

3. The proposed grant of $140,273 for the Adult Probation and 
Juvenile Probation Departments is approximately 14 percent 
(or $23,727) less than the FY 1991-92 grant award amount of 
$164,000 to the two departments. 

4. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request" as completed 
by the Adult Probation Department. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



34 



. MflY-21-1 992 _08-52 FROM 



TO 



92520461 P. 02 
i . ue. 



- Summary of Qrx^t %quffit 



Gxm*u> t ^ sprre &>f#0 of a 

Cootici Ptrjrto 



h&4*<%* -9 



J2l< 





A. mount R«q*«tctl J 
T«rmr. From 






IXrlsiOQ 

Section 
CvtttAci ttnon 

T<Kpbon< _ 
Application D*adirkt 









B**ni 



of SujxrrHorc r!n»n<rr Co«»Hi*» 



f- ton ftq KilirtlBni RoqwaB>(^jjjJjjp_ 
IL, SBBMBB < r 



a (Qfcw 1 ) (ecwfiocaticpHidiocauori) (gugreaatton to 



to*} 



Im the period ( 



.SQPriccE. 



^^m^^^sM^^&^i^^^^^^ t^, 



iijtf/jm////^tt/sm y /^wz^7Jtt:^ 



fa 7mtrtm. 



TUG wu 



MMfHTlW 



Ptfmrcift>»httttTm _ . 



tAOG&l/Am TOJ^MNS- 6F ttftfiF tain rJ&Ai*A&& Ufi&tLtN &AS&? aA/ 



'xm^jmniZM&srffiim'EWBHs^^ 



Btft, MltVtl *»»«*»« M> 



-.'Omt AHwat -..'.. __ ^_ */ffl. a-33 

*t**M*«K ■ - 

•CwrtfWl Stc ' — *_— „ 

Mat, ft 6tt9». _ __ ■ ., - 

vnn r «hmm«^^m i -T 

Xadtr««t Cortt ■■- ■ • 



yr, ttUL rmflffwhf 



wr etc 
v/t etc 

Ca*trs«t**i 




foWttfc} «f IM-tlui fpmnot for "****•* «T CSC mtrieym wlitsf parwUae «• ttti ftnti 
m , n 



Win fr**i ,f9ttd«4 tmptojtet U rtUtstd *fX«r Mil* p^at tvnUn««5? If », K«»? 



■4& 



»vm. Cwttttttatf g*~»~«T n r" wd. 



S«l« Joints 



\ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item lo - File 130-92-2 

Department Adult Probation Department 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Source of Grant 

Grant Period: 
Project 



Project Description 



Resolution authorizing the Chief Adult Probation Officer of 
the City and County of San Francisco to retroactively apply 
for, accept and expend a new Federal grant in the amount 
of $22,875, made available through the State Office of 
Criminal Justice Planning. 

$22,875 

Federal funds allocated through the State Office of Criminal 
Justice Planning (OCJP) 

May 1, 1992 to April 30, 1993 

County Master Plan, Criminal Justice System Assistance 
Program 

The Adult Probation Department would use the proposed 
Federal grant funds to purchase computer equipment and 
related computer training and consultant services. The 
computer equipment and related services would be used by 
the Adult Probation Department, Drug Abatement Program 
to provide substance abuse resource data which would help 
to fill gaps in coordination and information between the 
Police Department, the Sheriff, the District Attorney, 
community based substance abuse providers and the Adult 
Probation Department. It is expected that the data to be 
provided will (1) reduce the time currently spent in 
assessing defendant's eligibility for available treatment 
programs, (2) keep the District Attorney apprised of the 
probation status of defendants in the Drug Abatement 
Program, and (3) inform the Police Department of narcotic 
offenders and their whereabouts, including new arrests 
and changes of address. Additionally, this data base is 
expected to improve services to women substance abusers, 
who are pregnant and/or with children by helping to locate 
needed services and provide the necessary coordination 
between the service provider, the client and the criminal 
justice system. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Project Budget: 


Operating Expenses 






Personal Computer (1) 


$3,760 




Laserjet Printer (1) 


2,062 




Modem 


195 




Emulator Board 


763 




Computer Reservation Software 


5,000 




Database Program 


574 




Word Processing Program 


327 




Telecommunication Software 


99 




Computer Workstation 


652 




Miscellaneous Computer accessories 


420 




Computer Training 


750 




Computer Consultant Services 


6,900 




Audit 


229 




Subtotal 


$21,731 




Indirect Costs 


$1,144 




Total 


$22,875 


Required Match: 


None 




Indirect Costs: 


$1,144 (5% of total grant) 




Comments: 


1. As noted above, indirect costs in the amount of $ 



Recommendation: 



of total grant) have been included in the grant budget. This 
proposed legislation includes a reference to the inclusion of 
indirect costs in the body of the legislation, but not in the 
title of the legislation. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to indicate in the title of the proposed 
legislation that indirect costs have been included in the 
grant budget. 

2. Attached is a "Summary of Grant Request", as prepared 
by the Adult Probation Department, for the proposed grant. 

3. The Adult Probation Department has prepared a 
Disability Access Checklist which is included in the file. 

Amend the proposed resolution to add language to the title 
of the proposed legislation indicating that the proposed 
grant includes indirect costs of $1,144 based on 5 percent of 
the total grant award. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



37 



MOY-20-1992 08=58 FROM TO 92520461 P . 02 

imw" No. Adult Pr obation - Summary of Crfinf p fff1lff ;t 



Rev. 4/10/90 



GraMor Office of Criminal Justice Plan ning Division s. F. Adult Probation Dept 

Contact Persoo >John Isaacson Section Community Services 

Address 1130 "K" Street. Suite 300 Contact Person Carmen Bushe 



Sacramento. CA 95814 Telephone (415) 553-1901 

Amount Requested S 22,875 | Application Deadline 03/31/92 



Term:. From 05/01/92 To ^4/30/93 a&lffif'&d ftfftf R£S/ eS ° 1Utl ° n t0 - 3PPly 

Health Commission ^^____^__^___ Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee . 

Full Doard , 



T. item Description: Request to (apply fqr ) (acafy and expend) a (new ) (continuadoo) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
■" " tf"^" * 1 p»ntinthfiamotintoft ??.B7R from the period of 05/01/92 to 04/30/97 

i»r«™^ comDuterizeddata as identified by CountyMast ei 
drug and alcohol services. 



EL Summary; « 

A personol computer at Adult Probation Dept., Drug Abatement Program would serve as a 
"pilot program** and will contain data that will improve. services to women (pregnant - - 
and with children) addicted to drugs and/or aiconoi; serve as a resource directory 
for community programs available to Judges, Police, Sheriff's Dept. and APD. The ~ 
County Master Plan on substance abuse has ranked women and drug-exposed children as (over) 

III. Outco mes/Qplectlves: 

A computer with interdepartmental and intradepartmental capabilities would provide . 
linkage between all compcments of the Substance Abuse Waster Plan Committee and addr ess 
needs identified above. Th e current system is manual, requiring a longer wait tor ( over) 

TV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 

The current system would continue causing repeated Court appearances for probationer s, 
lack of Information available to trie various criminal justice agencies in neea qt 
information regarding substance abuse service providers available. 

V. Financial Informitloni 

COli A Col. B C9l, fi Col, D Rtfl, MlUh Approved h* 

T«o Yean Aeo Pwt YeetfOiie- Prooo«e4 Ounce 

Grant Amooot , _ f $22,875 . 

Personnel ____«^_— ' -Q- _— — - ■ ' 

Kqnlptnent ^____ : " 12- 7 SO ; 

•Contract Sve. '■'' 6.900 ____ 

M*U & S«pp. ' 1-072 _ 

Facilities/Space 



Other - Audit ■ 229 

Indirect Costs ■ ' 1-14 A 



vtt. faaouai 

F/T CSC -0- 

P/T CSC , ' -0- 

CoBtractoal _^_^^^ __ «___^_^ 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 

QwiiHfdl Fund 



Win grant funded employees be retained after this grant .terminates? If to. 

Contractual employees only — will uuL be relenned. . 



How? 



«Vin. comi-ictmi Str^ltfg; Opco Bid j V Sole Source 

; i8 



MPY-20-1992 08:58 FROM TO 92520461 P. 03 



II. Suiiiuary: (continued) 

the first priority in the City and County of San Francisco. The resource 
Information would potentially be available to all adult probationers via 
their Probation Officers. 

III. Outcomes/Objectives: (continued) 

information regarding services^available and phone calls, additional court 
appearances. This computer would provide faster, better linkage and would 
provide significant Court savings. 



39 



Memo - to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item Id - File 143-92-1 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 



Source of Grant 



Grant Period: 

Project: 

Project 
Description: 



Police Department 

Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police of the City and 
County of San Francisco to apply for, accept and expend a 
new Federal grant in the amount of $110,000, made available 
through the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning and 
agreeing to provide a cash match in the amount of $12,222. 

$110,000 

Federal funds through the State Office of Criminal Justice 
Planning (OCJP) 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor 



The proposed Federal grant funds would be used by the Police 
Department primarily to pay for contract services with San 
Francisco Safety Awareness for Everyone (SAFE), Inc., a 
non-profit agency, aimed at crime prevention. These crime 
prevention services would be targeted at the Mission District. 
Specific program services to be provided by SAFE in 
collaboration with the Police Department's Community 
Police Officer Program (CPOP) would include, but not be 
limited to, the following: 

1. Thirty (30) presentations on personal safety at senior 
citizen facilities. 

2. Development of a comprehensive resource directory (in 
English and Spanish) for elder abuse victims, caregivers, 
service providers, agencies and the community. A total of 
500 directories would be printed and distributed free of 
charge. 

3. Four (4) community trainings (30 persons per meeting), to 
educate practitioners, caregivers and the Police 
Department about the elder abuse reporting law and its 
purpose and to train these groups in the reporting 
process. This training would be done in collaboration 
with the Elder Abuse Consortium, a non-profit agency. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

4. The formation of 20 new Neighborhood Watch groups. 

5. Two (2) mass community meetings (at least 200 persons) 
aimed at introducing intensified crime prevention 
services in the target area and recruiting participants for 
Neighborhood Watch groups. 

6. Meetings once a month with Valencia Gardens Public 
Housing Resident's Association to establish crime 
prevention activities on site. 

7. Four (4) community-education meetings for 100 persons to 
provide residents, churches and businesses with 
information on the Victim Witness Assistance Program, 
Family Violence Project, conflict resolution programs and 
other services available in the target area, such as public 
and mental health services, substance-abuse services, 
employment training, youth activities and educational 
opportunities. 

8. Ten (10) introductory crime prevention presentations to 
200 persons during the grant year focusing on "Hate or 
Bias-Motivated Crime: Definitions and Procedures." 

9. Twelve (12) classroom presentations to 300-350 children in 
grades K-5, on home and street safety. 

10. Seven (7) sessions each at the target area middle school 
and high school, aimed at gang prevention. 

11. Twenty (20) business security presentations to 100 target- 
area businesses and merchants on robbery prevention, 
shoplifting, building security and security products. 

Project Budget Personnel 

Police Captain .05 FTE $3,395 

Police Officer .05 FTE 2.180 

Subtotal .10 FTE $5,575 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 








May 27, 1992 








Operating Expenses 








Training (Conference) 




$ 300 




Travel 




472 




Contract Services (S. F. 


SAFE, Inc.) 






Personnel (3 FTE) 


65,756 




Fringe Benefits 




10,771 




Postage 




550 




Training 




1,000 




Mileage 




978 




Consultant Services 




30,320 




Printing 




4,443 




Audit 




1.500 




Subtotal 






$116,090 


Indirect Costs 






557 


Total 






$122,222 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



* The $122,222 total project amount includes $110,000 of the 
proposed State OCJP grant funds plus $12,222 in City match. 

$12,222, in State revenues, which is included in the Police 
Department's 1992-93 budget request. 

$557 

1. Lieutenant Larry Ryan of the Police Department reports 
that the Department has requested that this item be 
continued to the call of the Chair in order to allow additional 
time for staff to adjust the amount of indirect costs to be 
included in the grant budget. 

2. Attached is a summary of the requested grant, which was 
prepared by the Police Department. 

3. The Police Department has prepared a Disability Access 
Checklist which is included in the file. 

Continue the proposed resolution to the call of the Chair as 
requested by the Police Department. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



42 



File Number '■ Attachment 

Page 1 of 2 

Grant Application Information Form 

A document required to accompany a proposed resolution 
Authorizing a Department to Apply for a Grant 



To: The Board of Supervisors 
Attn: Clerk of the Board 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying 
resolution : 

Department: San Francisco Police Department 

Contact Person: Lt - Larr V Rvan Telephone: 553 - 9177 

Project Title: Crime Prevention Expansion Project: Mission Corridor 
Grant Source: Office of Criminal Justice Planning 

Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project Summary: 

Based upon data gathered via a community needs assessment and crime statistic analysis, 
the San Francisco Police Department has developed an innovative approach to expand 
crime prevention in the high crime, culturally and ethnically diverse target area. Commur 
Police Officer Program (CPOP) has been active in this area for over two years. This 
grant emphasizes SFPD training to increase crime prevention efforts, training in victim 
services and cultural and ethnic sensitivity; community outreach, empowerment and 
organizing using he unique skills of CPOP and San Francisco SAFE, Inc., a community-ba 
group that provides crime prevention services to San Franciscans. CPOP and SAFE 
will work with Neighborhood Watch groups, youth elderly, area service providers, 
community groups, businesses and city government to implement new, non-traditional 
crime prevention activities. 



Amount of Grant Funding Applied for: $110,000.00 



Maximum Funding Amount Available: $1 10 ,000 .00 



Required Matching Funds: $ 12,222.00 

Number of Positions Created and Funded: 



Amount to be Spent on Contractual Services: $109 ,375 .00 
Will Contractual Services be put out to Bid? 



NO 



43 



Grant Application In. vrrnation Fori 
Paae 2 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



Term of Grant: July 1, 1992 through June 30. 1993 
Date Department Notified of Available funds: 
Application Due Date: April 13, 1992 



Grant Funding Guidelines and Options (from RFP, grant announcement or 
appropriations legislation): 

See Attached 



Assessment of Need for Grant Funding: 

With current resources limited, the San Francisco Police Department believes that 
this OCJP grant funding will enable officers to receive necessary training in 
cultural and ethnic sensitivity and victim services. Funding will also allow 
expansion of crime prevention efforts in this troubled target area that would not 
otherwise be available. 



Department Head Approval 



44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 2 - File 94-91-4.3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
20, 1992. 



Department: 



Item: 



Comment: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Request for release of a budgetary reserve of 1991-92 Federal 
Transit Administration Section 9 Capital Funds, including 
$51,598 in Federal funds and $13,402 in local matching funds 
for a total of $65,000 for Municipal Railway Contract No. MR- 
1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, 
Maintenance Building, Paint Booth Fans Modification. 

The Department has requested that the proposed item be 
continued to the Finance Committee meeting of June 3, 1992. 



Recommendation: Continue the proposed release of reserve to the June 3, 1992 
Finance Committee meeting. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 3 - File 192-92-2 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
20, 1992. 



Department 
Item: 






Grant Amount : 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description- 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 
Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the 
Department of Parking and Traffic and the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to apply for, accept and expend a 
continuation State grant for bicycle/pedestrian projects, 
forgoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 

$450,000 

Approximately June 1, 1992 through May 30, 1995 

State Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 

Bicycle/Pedestrian projects 

The State Transportation Development Act (TDA) was passed 
in 1971. Article 3 of the TDA includes provisions for 
pedestrian and bicycle allocations. While Article 3 allows the 
use of funds for support of public transportation systems or 
community transit services, or for local street and road 
purposes in lieu of bicycle/pedestrian projects, the Board of 
Supervisors passed a resolution (File 196-90-6) on October 29, 
1990 which urged the Mayor to support the full use of TDA 
Article 3, Bicycle/Pedestrian funds for bicycle/pedestrian 
improvements. If instead, the TDA funds were used for 
transit-related projects and appropriated to MUNI's budget, 
then these revenues could be used to offset MUNI's budget of 
which approximately 42.5 percent is General Fund revenues. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department of 
Parking and Traffic to fund the following projects: 



Bicycle Racks 


$100,000 


Bicycle signing and marking 




improvements 


115,000 


Bicycle safety education programs 




and a City bike route map 


10,000 


Installation of handicapped curb 




ramps 


200,000 


Improvement of pedestrian 




walkways in Bernal Heights 


25.000 


Total Budget 


$450,000 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 



Aft 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Comments: 



None. 

None. The State does not reimburse for indirect costs under 
TDA, Article 3. 

1. According to Mr. Tim Johnson, of the Department of 
Parking and Traffic (DPT), existing DPT staff would complete 
the bicycle signing, lane striping and mapping projects as 
follows: 

Bicycle signing and marking 

improvements $115,000 

Bicycle safety education programs 

and a City bike route map 10.000 

Total $125,000 

In addition, Mr. Johnson reports that the remaining projects 
would be work-ordered to the Department of Public Works 
(DPW), using existing DPW staff: 



Bicycle Racks 


$100,000 


Installation of handicapped curb 




ramps 


200,000 


Improvement of pedestrian 




walkways in Bernal Heights 


25.000 


Total 


$325,000 



2. According to Ms. Karen Gelman of the DPW, based on a 
City-wide survey of major neighborhoods and shopping 
districts completed by the DPW and the DPT, approximately 
970 curbs were identified in need of handicapped curb ramps. 
Ms. Gelman reports that although the total cost to install 
these 970 ramps would be approximately $1 million, the 
$200,000 in proposed TDA funds would be used to install 
curbs in the most critical high traffic areas. Approximately 
194 handicapped ramps would be installed with the proposed 
TDA funds (based on $1 million total estimated cost for 970 
curbs equals approximately $1,031 for each curb). Ms. 
Gelman reports that the DPW is currently attempting to 
acquire approximately $800,000 in Federal grant funds for the 
installation of the remaining handicapped curb ramps. 

3. Under the guidelines of the TDA Article 3 funds, the City 
has up to three years to encumber or expend these TDA 
Article 3 funds. In a letter dated April 27, 1992, the 
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which 
administers the State TDA funds for San Francisco, has 
informed the City that a total of $154,500 in previously 
allocated TDA Article 3 funds in FY 1989-90 must be 
expended or encumbered prior to June 30, 1992, or the City 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



LI 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



will lose these funds. According to Mr. Jerry Robbins of the 
DPT, any of these $154,500 in funds which the City does not 
expend or encumber would revert back to the MTC, and the 
City may reapply for these funds and reallocate the funds to 
other projects, such as handicap curb ramp projects or 
MUNI operations. 

4. Mr. Robbins reports that although the DPT has spent some 
of these previously issued TDA Article 3 funds, there have 
been significant delays in billing the MTC. Mr. Robbins 
explains that these delays in billings can be attributed to 
understaffing at the DPT. However, Mr. Robbins reports that 
the DPT is anticipating hiring a Transit Planner III, funded 
solely through half-cent sales tax revenues, to coordinate 
these bicycle and pedestrian projects, and to decrease any 
delays in billing. 

5. Although the MTC reports that there is a total of $154,500 
in previously allocated TDA Article 3 funds which must be 
expended or encumbered prior to June 30, 1992, or the City 
will lose these funds, the DPT reports that a total of $97,275 
has been encumbered. In addition, the DPT reports that they 
anticipate encumbering funds totalling $144,915 by the end of 
fiscal year 1991-92, and therefore, the DPT estimates that only 
$9,585 will revert back to the MTC for reallocation to the City 
and County during FY 1993-94. 

6. In a memo from the Controller to the Finance Committee 
dated May 22, 1992, the Controller indicates that of the 
$456,000 of TDA Article 3 funds awarded to the City for FY 
1991-92, only $1,700 has thus far been spent. In addition, the 
Controller indicates that other funds are available for bicycle 
and pedestrian projects such as half cent sales tax revenues 
and State Proposition 116 funds, which are not in competition 
with MUNI's budget. 

7. The DPT has completed a "Disability Access Checklist" 
which is in the file. 

8. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request." 

9. Although the Board of Supervisors has passed a resolution 
in 1990 (File 196-90-6) which supported the full use of TDA 
Article 3, bicycle/pedestrian funds for bicycle improvements, 
given that the proposed TDA funds could be used to offset 
MUNI operations costs, approval of the proposed resolution is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 

10. The Controller suggests that the Finance Committee defer 
action on this request until the Committee receives a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

complete report on the total bicycle and pedestrian program 
from the Departments involved including all funding 
sources. In addition, the Controller suggests that the 
Finance Committee consider the proposed TDA Article 3 
allocation at the same time as the Committee considers the 
MUNI's General Fund budget for 1992-93 since these funds 
are in competition with all other General Fund programs. 

Recommendation: Given that the proposed TDA funds could be used to offset 
MUNI operations costs, approval of the proposed resolution is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Attachment 
Summary of Grant Rcci llCSt 



Rev. 4/10/90 



State TDA Funds - Article 3 nh , ldnn Department of Parking & Traffic 

Grantor - UlWslon £ £_ 

Contact Person Metropolitan Transportation Section 

Addrcss UUl"£ssIo n Contact Person ^ JohnSOU 

~ Telephone 554-9823 



Amount Requested S ^5U , QUO Application Deadline 

Term: From 7/1/92 To 5/30/95 Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: finance Committee 

Full Doard 

I. Item Description; Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
(&dc W opri.«: ..«*) grant in the amount of $ 450,000 from the period of 7/1/92 to 5/30/95 

to provide Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement services. 

Sum TT1 3rVT ( CtMMaOflBaXoty^ nn-A adAgaoJ; number* group* »crvcd; acrviocs «*i pro>-wi-r» ) 

The proposed funds would be used for support bicycle/pedestrian improvements, 

including Installation of signing and marking handicapped curb ramps and improved ' 
pedestrian walkways in Bemal Heights. 



III. Outcomes/Objectives: 

Improve bicycle/pedestrian conditions. 



TV. Effects of Reduction or Termination of These Funds: 



V. Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. P Req. Match Approved by 

Two Years Ago Past Year/Orig. Proposed Change 

Grant Amount $472.313 $450.000 ($22 r 313 ) 

Personnel 

Equipment 

'Contract Svc. 

Mat. & Supp. _^^^_^^^_ 

Facilitles/Spatce " 

other $4/2,313 $450,000 ($22,313) 

Indirect Costs 



.VI. Data Processing 

(coso bid tided above) 

VII. Personnel 

F/T CSC N/A 

P/T CSC 

Contractual 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 



'VIII. Contractual Services: Open Bid Sole Source <tf.o;c^-<t..c;;R KJ cnt„Ej Ual>p < J ooFa™i) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 4 - File 97-92-29 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
20, 1992. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 16.157 of the 
Administrative Code to approve the City's FY 1992-93 Health Service System plans 
and rates of contribution as adopted by the Health Service Board to be paid by the 
members of the system. The members of the system are comprised of employees, 
retirees, and the surviving spouses of employees and retirees of the City and 
County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified School District and the 
Community College District. 

2. The Board of Supervisors previously adopted a resolution setting the 
City's contribution to the Health Service Fund for FY 1992-93 at $163.27 per month 
for each member. The City's contribution was established in accordance with 
Charter Sections 8.423 and 8.428, which set the average contribution rate based on 
a survey of the ten most populous counties in California. The City's contribution of 
$163.27 per month ($1,959.24 per year) represents an increase of 540 per month, or 
less than one percent over the FY 1991-92 rate of $162.73 per month ($1,952.76 per 
year). 

3. Once the City's contribution is established, member contributions are 
calculated by the Health Service System actuary, Rael and Letson, Consulting 
Actuaries in order to ensure that contributions from all sources will be adequate 
to support anticipated claims for the upcoming fiscal year. The proposed 
ordinance would establish member contribution rates for FY 1992-93 pursuant to 
Charter Sections 8.421 and 8.422. Charter Sections 8.421 and 8.422 require 
approval by three-fourths of the members of the Board of Supervisors after the 
Board has secured an actuarial report of the costs and effects of any proposed 
change in the benefits of the Health Service System or rates of contribution. 
Contribution rates vary according to: (1) whether or not a member is an active 
employee, retired employee, or surviving spouse; (2) whether or not that 
individual has Medicare coverage; and (3) which of the City's six health plans 
that individual elects to join. The actuarial report and details of the member 
contribution rates are contained in the Clerk's file. 

4. Six plans will be offered in the 1992-93 fiscal year. The plans are: 

•City Health Plan* 

•Kaiser Foundation 

•Bridgeway 

•Aetna Health Plans of Northern California 

(formerly Bay Pacific) 

•Qual-Med California (formerly Heals) 

•Foundation Health Plan 

* Administered by the Health Service System. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



$56.9 
20.7 


39.9 
14.5 


16.5 
JL4 


11.6 
_&2 


$ 101.5 


71.2 


41.1 


28.8 


$142.6 


100.0 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

5. The total revenue generated from employer and member contributions 
for the health plans in 1992-93 is estimated to be $142.6 million. A summary of the 
revenue sources is as follows: 

Percent 
Amount ofTotal 

(Millions) Contributions 

City and County Contribution 

- Current Employees 

- Retired Employees and Surviving Spouses 

School DistrictyCommunity College District 
Contribution 

- Current Employees 

- Retired Employees and Surviving Spouses 

Total Employer Contributions 
Employee Contributions 
Total Contributions 

6. Of the total estimated employer contributions of $101.5 million, 
approximately $49,329,000, or approximately 48.6 percent, would be contributed 
from the City's General Fund. The remaining $52.17 million of employer 
contributions would be paid from the City's Special Funds (e.g., Airport, Port, 
Water Department and Hetch Hetchy) and from School District and Community 
College District revenue sources. 

7. The employee contribution rates for health benefits for fiscal year 1992-93 
generally reflect an increase in employee contribution costs. According to the 
Health Service System, this is because the increase in employer contributions of 
54# per employee per month, which were established based on a survey of average 
contribution rates for the ten most populous counties in California, is very slight. 
Therefore, increased medical costs must be supported by increased employee 
contributions and decreased benefits in some health plans. The cost changes to 
employees range from a reduction of $15.73 per month ($188.76 annually) to an 
increase of $51.61 per month ($619.32 annually). Mr. Smith advises that the 
unions object to the increased employee contributions and decreased benefits in 
some health plans. However, the City's contribution is established in accordance 
with Charter Sections 8.423 and 8.428, and therefore cannot be increased. 

A comparison of the FY 1991-92 monthly rates for active and retired City 
employees with the proposed FY 1992-93 rates adopted by the Health Service Board 
and the monthly difference in costs are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Citv Health Plan 

Single Employee 

Employee plus one dependent 

Employee plus two dependents 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Bridgeway Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Aetna Health Plans of California 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Qual-Med California 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 

Foundation Health Plan 
Single Employee 
Employee plus one dependent 
Employee plus two dependents 



1991-92 

Monthly 

Rates 


1992-93 

Monthly 

Rates 


Monthly 
Difference 


$38.06 
172.03 
259.09 


$38.00 
200.00 
305.00 


$ (.06) 
27.97 
45.91 



158.89 
234.10 


10.18 
174.17 
285.71 


10.18 
15.28 
51.61 



152.98 
224.04 


9.61 
161.60 
271.56 


9.61 

8.62 

47.52 



174.86 
239.92 


10.53 
173.88 
268.42 


10.53 
(.98) 
28.50 



176.63 
236.38 


5.00 
160.90 
245.04 


5.00 

(15.73) 

8.66 



163.05 
246.28 


7.35 
162.07 
274.78 


7.35 
(.98) 
28.50 



Decreased benefits include, but are not limited to, an increase in the annual 
deductible for the City Health Plan from $175 to $250, an increase from no charge 
to $5 for physicians' visits for the Bridgeway Plan, and an increase from no 
charge to $5 for physicians' visits and an increase in prescription drugs from $3 to 
$5 in the Kaiser Plan. For more information on benefit changes, see attached. 

8. The total estimated cost of $142.6 million for the various health plans for 
FY 1992-93 includes the employer and employee contributions and represents an 
average increase of approximately 9 percent over the FY 1991-92 costs of $130.8 
million. The projected total premium contributions (in millions) based on current 
plan membership for the six health plans (assumes all current members 
continue to subscribe to the same health plans in 1992-93) are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



City Health Plan 

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan 

Bridgeway Health Plan 

Aetna Health Plans of California 

Qual-Med California 

Foundation Health Plan 

Total 



1991-92 


1992-93 




Projected 


Projected 


Percentage 


Premiums 


Premiums 


Increase 


$38.6 


$46.8 


21.2 


59.8 


62.3 


4.2 


17.7 


18.6 


5.1 


9.7 


10.1 


4.1 


4.8 


4.6 


(4.2) 


.2 


.2 


-- 



$130.8 



$142.6 



9.0 



9. In November 1991, the voters approved a measure (Proposition B) which 
provides employer-supported dental care benefits to City employees. Currently, 
most City employees may participate only in employee-paid dental plans. Mr. 
Randall Smith of the Health Service System advises that previously, only the 
following City, Unified School District (SFUSD), and Community College District 
(SFCCD) employees received employer-paid dental benefits: (a) all permanent 
classified and almost all certificated teachers at SFUSD and SFCCD; (b) all 
nurses; and (c) all full-time transit operators employed by the Municipal Railway. 
As a result of Proposition B, Mr. Smith advises, at least 19,000 additional 
employees are anticipated to be eligible for employer-supported dental care 
benefits. 

Mr. Smith reports that two types of dental plans are to be made available to 
employees. The first type is an indemnity plan, where employees may select any 
dentist and the dentist will be paid for the dental services based on a set schedule 
of benefits. Employees under this plan are responsible for a portion of their dental 
care, such as 50 percent for dentures or 20 percent for fillings. The second type is 
a pre-paid plan, where employees must select from a limited number of dentists 
enrolled in the plan. Under the pre-paid plan, employees are responsible for few 
or no co-payments for their dental work. 

According to Mr. Smith, the Employee Relations Division negotiated with 
the unions regarding the implementation of Proposition B. ERD and the unions 
agreed to guarantee employees an indemnity dental plan for which the City would 
pay up to $65 per month per employee. This $65 per month would be a composite 
payment, in other words, the amount would be the same regardless of whether or 
not an employee had dependents. 

Mr. Smith advises that the Health Service Board was given responsibility 
for selecting a vendor that would provide an indemnity plan at a composite 
amount of $65 per month per employee. The Health Service Board selected Delta 
Dental as the vendor, based on a Request for Proposals. According to Mr. Smith, 
the Health System has reserved the right to pay Delta Dental either on a composite 
basis, at $65 per month per employee regardless of the number of dependents, or 
on a three-tiered basis. Delta Dental's three-tiered rates are as follows: 



BOARD OF ST JPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

1992-93 

Monthly 

Rates 

Citv Health Plan 

Single Employee $29.84 

Employee plus one dependent 55.05 

Employee plus two dependents 88.51 

The Health Service System is currently beginning an open enrollment 
period for dental benefits. Mr. Smith reports that based on the number of 
employees and dependents who enroll in the various programs, the Health 
Service System will select the least costly method of payment for the City. 

In addition to the indemnity plan, the Health Service System has elected to 
offer employees two pre-paid plans, DentiCare Dental Plan and Safeguard Dental 
Plan. The rates for DentiCare Dental Plan and Safeguard Dental Plan are as 
follows: 

DentiCare Dental Plan 

Single Employee $ 16.25 

Employee plus one dependent 21.95 

Employee plus two dependents 32.50 

Safeguard Dental Plan 

Single Employee 13.74 

Employee plus one dependent 21.20 

Employee plus two dependents 31.98 

These two pre-paid programs are less than half the price of the indemnity 
program through Delta Dental. Thus, for every employee who participates in one 
of these programs, the City's costs would be reduced. Although employees who 
select a pre-paid program would be restricted to those dentists enrolled in the 
program, employees who select the pre-paid program would be required to pay 
little or no portion of their dental care costs, as they would under Delta Dental. 

Mr. Smith reports that the Health Service System anticipates that nearly 
every employee eligible to receive dental care benefits will enroll in the program. 
The total cost to the City of providing these dental plans will be dependent on the 
number of employees who elect to enroll in each plan, and on the number of 
dependents of those employees. However, the Budget Analyst estimates, based on 
a minimum of 19,000 newly eligible employees, that the cost would most likely 
range from a minimum of $12,859,200 annually, based on 20 percent of 19,000 
employees enrolling in pre-paid plans at a cost of $22 per month per employee 
with one dependent ($1,003,200 per year) and 80 percent of 19,000 employees 
enrolling in the indemnity program at a maximum of $65 per month ($11,856,000), 
to a maximum of $14,820,000 annually, if 19,000 employees become eligible and 
each employee elects to enroll in the indemnity plan at a cost of $65 per employee 
per month for twelve months. The Controller advises that funds for the dental 
plan have been included in the Mayor's recommended FY 1992-93 budget. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Rprammpindation 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Attachment 1 

Pae;e 1 of 3 
) 

HEALTH PLAN 
RATE AND BENEFIT CHANGES 

CITY HEALTH PLAN 

Contribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 21 .2%, which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $38.6 million currently to $46.8 million in 
1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

Preferred Provider Plan Benefit Changes 
No Benefit Changes. 

Standard Plan Benefit Changes 

All covered services paid at 70% of usual and reasonable charges after a $250 
deductible is satisfied. (Current coverage is at 80% with a $175 deductible). 

Exceptions to above coverage: 

Inpatient hospital bills incurred in a hospital outside the Preferred Provider service 
area and by a member residing outside the PPO service area would be paid at 80%. 

Inpatient hospital bills incurred in a hospital within the PPO service area would be 
paid at 50% with the exception of emergency admissions to be paid at 80%. The 
benefit for emergency admission is reduced to 50% coverage once the patient's 
condition has stabilized and it is medically determined that a transfer to a contract 
Preferred Provider Hospital can be made. 

Special Surgery benefit will be covered at 70% of usual and customary charge 
(currently covered at 100%). 

Dental services related to an injury or treatment/removal of tumors of the gums are 
covered at 70% (This is a reduction in covered dental services and benefit 
copayment). 

Vision examination and lense replacement every 24 months (currently every 12 
months). 

Acupuncture benefit eliminated. 



57 



Attachment 1 
Pape 2 of 3 



KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 



Contribution Rates 



The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 0.8% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from approximately $ 59.8 million currently to 
$60.3 million in 1992-93. 

Moposeci benefit Chang es 

Physician visit will cost $5 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

Prescription drugs will cost $5 per prescription up to a 34-day supply (currently $3 per 
prescription). 

Mental health visits will cost $20 per visit when prescribed by a Plan physician 
[». l uly there is no charge for maximum of 20 visits). 

Allergy tests and injection visits will cost $3 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

BRIDGEWAY HEALTH PLAN 

Contribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 5.1% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from approximately $17.7 million to $18.6 
million for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

Network Plan 

* No Benefit Changes 

Hospital Based Plan 

Physician visits will cost $5 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

Physical Therapy visit will cost $1 5 per visit (There is no charge currently). 

AETNA HEALTH PLANS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 

Formerly Bay Pacific Health Plan 

C ontribution Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately 4.1% which based on current 
momhor<!hin will increase annual premiums from $9.7 million to approximately $10.1 
million for 1992-93. 

nu H ^cJ Benefit Changes 

None 

58 



Attachment 1 
Page 3 of 3 



QUAL-MED CALIFORNIA 

Formerly Heals Health Plan 



Contribution Rates 



The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately (4.2)% which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $4.8 million to approximately $4.6 million 
for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

None. 

FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 

Cw.-.Joinion Rates 

The overall rate increase of the plan is approximately - % which based on current 
membership will increase annual premiums from $.2 to $.2 for 1992-93. 

Proposed Benefit Changes 

None. 

DENTAL PLANS 

The Colonial Life Dental Plan will no longer be offered effective July 1, 1992. 

All retired and members will have an option of three dental plans: 

Delta Dental Plan - This is a fee-for-service dental plan where you may select the 
dentist of your choice to provide services. 

DentlCare Dental Plan - This is a closed panel prepaid dental plan providing a 
comprehensive set of benefits. You must select a dentist from those dentists participating 
in the plan. 

Safeguard Dental Plan - This is also a closed panel prepaid dental plan providing a 
comprehensive set of benefits. You must select a dentist from those dentists participating 
in the plan. 

The benefits and premium costs of each plan are enclosed. 

DISABILITY PLAN 

A hospital income protection rider will be offered for the first time. 



59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 5 - File 100-92-3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
20, 1992. 

This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. 

On March 31, 1992, the Controller, the Mayor's Finance Director and the 
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst issued a Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall for Fiscal Year 1992-93. A revenue shortfall of between $139.2 
and $148.2 million for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year is projected in order to fund the level 
of services assumed in the original 1991-92 budget. This projected revenue 
shortfall results largely from a combination of (a) increased spending levels in 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 of $170.8 million, including $108.0 million in salary and fringe 
benefit increases and (b) reduced General Fund revenues. 

This latest projection compares to the prior revenue shortfall projection of 
$91.7 million in a joint report dated November 27, 1991. 

The $139.2 to $148.2 million projected revenue shortfall amount must be 
eliminated through either (a) a reduction in expenditures (b) increased revenue 
sources, or (c) a combination of both. 

According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, the California 
State Constitution requires that the City and County of San Francisco adopt a 
balanced budget each year. The City's Charter, Section 6.203 states that not later 
than June first of each year, the Mayor shall transmit to the Board of Supervisors 
the consolidated budget estimates for all departments and the proposed budget for 
the City and County for the ensuing fiscal year, including a detailed estimate of 
all revenues for each department and an estimate of the amount required to meet 
bond interest, redemption and other fixed charges of the City and County and the 
applicable revenues. At the same time, the Mayor is also required to submit to the 
Board of Supervisors a draft of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the 
ensuing fiscal year, which is prepared by the Controller. 

According to Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor is 
required to submit a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Delventhal 
acknowledges however that the Mayor's proposed budget may include anticipated 
revenues that have yet to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. For example, 
during the fiscal year 1991-92 budget, the Mayor submitted a proposed budget that 
included increases in the City's parking tax from 20 to 25 percent and increases in 
the MUNI Fast Pass, the projected revenues from which would balance the 
proposed expenditures. The Board of Supervisors had not yet adopted these 
revenue measures as of June, 1991 when the Mayor submitted his recommended 
budget to the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

(\0 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

In preparation for an anticipated shortfall in the 1992-93 budget, Ms. Teresa 
Serata of the Mayor's Office reports that initially the Mayor's Office requested that 
each department submit a reduced 10 percent proposed budget for fiscal year 1992- 
93. However, given the $139.2 to $148.2 million shortfall projected, the Mayor's 
Office requested that each department and commission review and resubmit their 
proposed 1992-93 budgets to the Mayor's Office, to include an additional 8 percent 
reduction. Because many of the departments under the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO) are so small, the Mayor's Office requested an additional collective 8 
percent reduction from all of the CAO's departments, rather than individually. In 
addition, specific reductions of $20 million each from the Municipal Railway 
(MUNI) and the Health Department were requested in lieu of an additional 8 
percent reduction. 

According to Ms. Serata, in addition to expenditure reductions, 
departments were encouraged by the Mayor's Office to include additional 
potential revenues that could be used to offset the additional 8 percent reduction. 

The Mayor's Office has outlined the following anticipated budget schedule. 
The Mayor's budget staff have recently finalized each department's budget. This 
includes additional revenue ideas and enhancements for the departments. Ms. 
Jean Mariani of the Mayor's Office reports that the Mayor worked with the 
Controller's Office during the week of May 18 through May 22, in order to 
reconcile individual department's numbers and the overall budget. According to 
Ms. Mariani, a draft final balanced budget will be submitted to the printer on May 
26 and initial copies of the Mayor's 1992-93 budget should be available by 
approximately May 27. As has been the practice in prior years, the Mayor's Office 
could provide a confidential copy of the Mayor's budget to the Budget Analyst's 
Office once copies were available from the printer, although complete budget 
information, including necessary detail and back-up materials would not be 
available until June 1, 1992. 

The Finance Committee inquired on April 8, 1992 and again on April 15, 
1992 regarding the ability of the Board of Supervisors to receive the 1992-93 budget 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline as required by the Charter, or if that is not 
possible, to receive preliminary budget data or alternative budgetary scenarios 
prior to the June 1, 1992 deadline. On April 22, 1992, the Mayor presented a letter 
to the members of the Finance Committee providing advance information about 
the FY 1992-93 budget, which the Mayor's Office is currently reviewing. This 
letter summarized the budget process, meetings, explains the differences among 
the various department's budget targets, SB 855 services, etc. In addition, various 
attachments to this letter highlight specific expenditure reductions, revenue 
increases and departmental targets for the larger City departments. 

On April 22, 1992, the Finance Committee also requested additional 
information regarding which policies and priorities were being assigned to 
various City programs and services, in terms of developing the FY 1992-93 budget. 
In reviewing individual City department budgets, Ms. Foley indicated that the 
Mayor's Office attempted to balance departmental revenue ideas with service 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



"Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

reductions, with a goal of minimizing the impact on services to the public. 
However, Ms. Foley cautioned that the current administration's position that no 
new general tax increases will be imposed, in conjunction with the required costs 
of Salary Standardization and numerous Memorandum of Understanding 
(MOUs), consent decrees and other prior agreements, significantly limit the 
flexibility of the Mayor's Office in terms of which items and programs can be 
reduced in the FY 1992-93 budget. According to Ms. Foley, the Mayor's Office 
requested that each Department prioritize their budgeted programs and services 
according to a hierarchy of the most important to the least important, when 
submitting their FY 1992-93 departmental budget requests. Ms. Foley reported 
that most departments submitted prioritized budgets with various options, and 
that the Mayor's budget staff reviewed these individual departmental priorities as 
part of the Mayor's budget review. 

Ms. Serata reports that the FY 1992-93 budget will identify all Proposition J - 
Children's Amendment Services according to whether these services are existing 
(baseline) or new programs and services. In addition, according to Ms. Serata, 
the Mayor's budget staff is presently compiling the number of layoffs by 
department that are anticipated to be included in the FY 1992-93 budget. 

Mr. Ed Harrington of the Controller's Office reports that according to 
Section 6.306 of the Charter and based on discussions with the City Attorney, the 
Controller is not required to certify the revenues contained in the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance (annual budget). As required by Section 6.301 of the 
Charter, the Controller is responsible for periodically preparing revenue 
projections and if the Controller's revenue projections indicate a shortfall of 
revenues, the Controller has the authority to limit expenditures by City 
departments to the extent of the revenues being projected. According to Mr. 
Harrington, as historically has occurred, he anticipates that there will be 
agreement between the Controller and the Mayor's Office regarding the revenue 
estimates for FY 1992-93. 

Mr. Harrington advises that the Controller's Office has had some 
discussions with the Mayor's staff and consulted with local leading economists on 
the projected major revenues (e.g., property taxes, sales taxes, motor vehicle in 
lieu and business taxes) for FY 1992-93. At the May 20, 1992 Finance Committee 
meeting, the Controller provided the Finance Committee with some additional 
projected revenues for FY 1992-93. However, on May 20, 1992, the State 
Department of Finance also issued their revised May estimates for revenues, 
reflecting a significantly more pessimistic projection for FY 1992-93, which had 
not been factored into the projected revenues. As a result of the State report, the 
Controller, Mayor's Office and Budget Analyst are reconsidering the revenue 
projections for additional adjustments. 

Ms. Mariani confirms that the Mayor will be submitting a balanced budget 
to the Board of Supervisors by June 1, 1992, which will contain new revenues and 
reductions in expenditures. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 6 - File 148-92-2 



Department: 
Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 

Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept and expend Federal funds for seismic retrofitting 
modifications and rehabilitation of various bridges in San 
Francisco. 

$8,200,000 (See Comment #1) 

Approximately July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1998 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), administered 
under the State Department of Transportation (Cal trans) 

Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program 

The proposed grant funds have been made available under 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 
The proposed grant funds would be used for extensive 
repairs, seismic retrofitting, modifications and rehabilitation 
for proper functioning and safety of various bridges in San 
Francisco. The bridges which have been identified for 
repairs, based on studies and inspections by the DPW, are as 
follows: 

Roanoke pedestrian overcrossing (over San Jose Avenue) 

Richland Avenue overcrossing 

China Basin Bridge (4th Street) 

Market Street Viaduct (near 24th Street) 

Market Street, sidehill viaducts 3 and 4 

Argent Street pedestrian overcrossing (over Market Street) 

Romain Street pedestrian overcrossing (over Market Street) 

Geary Street underpass at Fillmore Street 

Webster Street pedestrian overcrossing (Geary Boulevard) 

Bryant Street sidehill bridge 

Harrison Street viaduct 

Brotherhood Way pedestrian overcrossing 

Highland Avenue 

Broadway Tunnel (between Hyde and Mason) 

Hester Avenue sidehill viaduct (Route 80) 

Lippard Street pedestrian overcrossing 

Hampshire Road 

L Line overcrossing 

Market Street Sidehill viaduct 1 

Broadway Street (Mason Street bridge) 

Geary Blvd. (under Masonic Avenue) 

Stockton Street Tunnel 

Quint Street underpass 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



6T 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Budget: 



Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



Whale Shopping Plaza 
Boston Shopping Plaza 
California State 

Automobile Association pedestrian overcrossing 
Lincoln Way separation 
City College pedestrian overcrossing 
Hyde Street viaduct 
Church Street (at 19th Avenue) 



Federal Local 



Total 



Contractual Services 
Construction Contract 
Contingencies (10 %) 



$4,458,678 
445.868 



$541,322 
54.132 



$5,000,000 
500.000 



Total Contractual Service $4,904,546 $595,454 $5,500,000 



DPW Design Engineering 565,079 68,605 



633,684 



DPW Inspection 
DPW Overhead 
Total Project Cost 



565,079 68,605 633,684 

525.296 907.336 1.432.632 

$6,560,000 $1,640,000 $8,200,000 



$1,640,000, to be funded through a combination of gas tax 
funds and half-cent sales tax funds, to be applied for 
annually by the DPW throughout the grant period 
(approximately July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1998). 

The use of grant funds for indirect costs is prohibited by the 
granting agency (See Comment #2). Therefore, the DPW is 
requesting that indirect costs be waived. 

1. Although the proposed legislation indicates that the 
Department of Public Works (DPW) is requesting 
authorization to apply for, accept and expend Federal funds 
in the amount of $8,200,000, as noted in the above-listed 
budget, total project costs are estimated at $8,200,000, 
consisting of $6,560,000 in Federal funds and $1,640,000 in 
local matching funds. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
should be amended to authorize the DPW to apply for, accept 
and expend $6,560,000 in Federal funds versus $8,200,000 as 
indicated on the proposed resolution. 

2. As noted above, the granting agency (FHWA) does not 
allow the use of grant funds for indirect costs. However, the 
FHWA is providing reimbursement for DPWs overhead. 
According to Mr. David Leung of the DPW, included in the 
DPW overhead is mandatory fringe benefits, holiday pay and 
DPW clerical and administrative costs. Mr. Leung reports 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



6k 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

that although the FHWA does reimburse for a portion of 
these mandatory fringe benefits and holiday pay costs, the 
FHWA does not reimburse for indirect costs which would go 
back into the General Fund. Therefore, the DPW is 
requesting that indirect costs be waived. 

3. According to Ms. Kathy How of the Department of Public 
Works (DPW), the contractor for the proposed bridge 
replacement and repair project has not yet been selected. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution should be amended to 
reserve the $5,500,000 budgeted for contractual services 
(consisting of $4,904,546 in Federal funds and $595,454 in 
local matching funds) pending the selection of a 
contractors), MBE and/or WBE status of the contractors) 
and finalized cost details. 

4. Mr. David Leung of the DPW reports that the average 
hourly rate for DPW project staff which would complete the 
Design Engineering and Inspection is approximately $50 an 
hour. Therefore, the DPW is estimating approximately 
25,347 hours would be incurred on the proposed project for 
the $1,267,368 budgeted for Design Engineering and 
Inspection (consisting of $633,684 budgeted for Design 
Engineering and $633,684 budgeted for Inspection). 

5. The Disability Access Checklist is in the file. 

6. Attached is the "Summary of Grant Request." 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed resolution to authorize the DPW to 
apply for, accept and expend $6,560,000 in Federal funds 
versus $8,200,000 as indicated on the proposed resolution. 

2. Amend the proposed resolution to reserve the $5,500,000 
budgeted for contractual services (consisting of $4,904,546 in 
Federal funds and $595,454 in local matching funds) pending 
the selection of a contractors), MBE and/or WBE status of the 
contractors) and finalized cost details. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Attachment 



Item' No. _ 



Summary of Grant Req uest 



Grantor Federal Highway Administration Division Dept. of Public Works (D PW) 

Contact Person Section 

Address : Contact Person _KathyHoW 



Telephone 



Amount Requested $ Application Deadline 

Term: From To Notification Expected 

Health Commission Board of Supervisors: Finance Committee 

Full Board 



I. Item Description: Request to (apply for) (accept and expend) a (new) (continuation) (allocation) (augmentation to a) 
<c~k w<ru* ~~t> g^t m ^g amount of $ 6 , 560 , OOO from the period of 7/1/92 to 6/30/98 

to provide services. 

Sum TT1 3 TV! ( CoetaOflaMtptyi need •<tJre»»cxl; number ♦ fioup* "Tired; — nrioc* mad provide— ) 

The proposed grant funds would be used for extensive repairs seismic retrofitting, 
modirications and rehabilitation for proper functioning and safety of various bridge s 
in San Francisco. 



ITT. Outcomes/Objectives: 

Improved safety and repairs to various bridges in San Francisco. 



TV. Effects of Re duction or Termination of These Funds; 



V. Financial Information: 

Col. A Col. B Col. C Col. D Req. Match Approved by 

Two Years Ago Past Yeai/Orig. Proposed Change 

Grant Amount ; ■ _____ $6,560,000 $1,640,000 

Personnel ' 

Equipment - 

•Contract Svc. $ 4.904.546 $ 595,454 . 

Mat. & Supp. ____^^_ ■ 

Facilities/Space ■ 

Other . 

Indirect Costs _^ ' 

V I. Data Processinp 

(cia— PuJmfcd «l*?*"c) _ 

VII. Personnel 

F/T CSC 

prr csc 

Contractual ' 



Source(s) of non-grant funding for salaries of CSC employees working part-time on this grant: 



Will grant funded employees be retained after this grant terminates? If so, How? 



*VIIIi Contrac tual Services: Open Bid X Sole Source ( if -^ «-.=. _d> fe~ai to, E^mpiic F<>™ ) 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 7 - File 123-92-1 

Department: Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Bureau of Engineering 

Item: . Ordinance amending Article 8, Part II, Chapter X, of the San 

Francisco Municipal Code (Public Works Code) by amending 
Sections 352, 353, 368 and 374 and by adding Sections 352.1 
and 352.2 to authorize the Director of Public Works to set 
schedules of fees and to collect said fees to recover costs of 
administering and regulating permitted excavations. 

Description: The Department of Public Works (DPW) currently collects 

fees for excavation certificates in the amount of $0.12 per 
square foot of pavement to be excavated. 

The proposed ordinance would authorize the Director of 
Public Works or his or her designated representative to 
develop and establish a rate schedule that would set the fees 
to be deducted or collected for any excavation approved 
pursuant to Article 8. The Director would base the rate 
schedule on those costs that the Director estimates are 
reasonably expected to be actually incurred by the 
Department in the course of administering, regulating and 
inspecting excavations, as are authorized under Article 8. 
The rates would be set according to the extent and complexity 
of the excavation. Factors to be considered by the Director in 
determining the actual costs would include, but not be 
limited to, administrative costs, supervision and inspection 
charges, and overhead expenses. The schedule of fees would 
also provide rates for special costs including, but not limited 
to, overtime, weekend or night work, or other work for which 
the Department may incur more than the normal anticipated 
cost for administration, supervision and inspection. The 
Director of Public Works would be authorized to revise the 
rates and fee schedules from time to time but not more than 
once in a fiscal year, to reflect any changes in the costs 
incurred by the Department. 

Comments: 1. DPWs current fee for excavation work is $0.12 per square 

foot of pavement to be excavated, with a minimum fee of $25, 
and an amount to cover the actual cost of inspection for 
excavations other than utility excavations, such as work 
performed by a private contractor. 

2. DPW's proposed excavation fees would provide for a permit 
processing fee of $25 and an inspection fee of either $1.00 or 
$1.50 per square foot, as shown on the following page. 
Therefore, the proposed rate per square foot would increase 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



by a range of from 733 percent ($0.12 to $1.00) to 1,150 percent 
($0 19 tnifcl Kfn 



($0.12 to $1.50) 



Sauare footage 


Permit 

Processing 


Fee 


InsDection Fee 


Less than 
100 sq. ft. 


$25 




$25 


101-500 sq. ft. 


$25 




$1.00 per sq. ft. 


Greater than 
500 sq. ft. 


$25 




$1.50 per sq. ft. 



Note: Square foot rate is calculated relative to each approved 
permit's proposed excavation surface area (length x width). 

3. Revenues obtained from excavation fees are placed in the 
Excavation Fund, a special fund. 

4. As currently proposed, approval of this proposed 
legislation would enable the Director of Public Works to have 
blanket authority to set future rate schedules without 
obtaining any subsequent approval from the Board of 
Supervisors. 

5. Ms. Denise Brady of DPW has provided the Budget Analyst 
with a chart showing actual expenditures and revenues from 
excavation fees for fiscal years 1985-86 through 1990-91 and 
estimated expenditures and revenues for fiscal year 1991-92 
(Attachment I). Attachment I also shows the surplus funds 
carried forward each year, the number of permits issued and 
square footage inspected for FYs 1990-91 and 1991-92 
(estimated). In addition, Attachment I shows the square 
footage range for permits issued in FYs 1990-91 and 1991-92. 

6. Attachment II displays projected costs for DPW's 
excavation inspection program during FY 1992-93. The 
projected costs are based on a workload of 6,000 excavation 
permits to be issued. 

7. Ms. Brady reports that fees were last changed in 1985, 
when they were reduced because of the then existing large 
fund surplus (see Attachment I). 

8. The service performed by an excavation inspector is that of 
ensuring that pavement is excavated and restored in 
accordance with City standards. The largest excavators in 
the City, in order of their excavation activities, are PG&E, the 
San Francisco Water Department, Pacific Bell, and Viacom. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



All other excavation permittees constitute less than one 
percent of all excavations. 

9. The following examples illustrate the effect of the proposed 
fee increase. 

Example 1; 3' x 3' excavation in a City street to repair a water 
or gas leak 

Current Fee $25 

Proposed Fee $50 

Percentage Increase 100 percent 

Example 2: A 100' x 2' excavation to provide new water, gas, 
or telephone service. 

Current Fee $25 

Proposed Fee $225 

Percentage Increase 800 percent 

Example 3: A 400' x 2' (City block) excavation to replace a 
water or gas main. 

Current Fee $96 

Proposed Fee $1,225 

Percentage Increase 1,176 percent 

10. Attachment III shows the inspection levels that could be 
accomplished at revenue levels of $500,000 and $843,000. The 
proposed fee increase is projected to generate revenues of 
approximately $843,000 or approximately 146 percent more 
than the estimated $342,055 in revenues that the Department 
expects to collect in FY 1991-92. Ms. Brady states that 
inspection services at the $843,000 revenue level are required 
to adequately insure that the City's standards for the 
excavation and restoration of pavement are being adhered to. 

11. The San Francisco Water Department, in a letter to the 
Department of Public Works dated April 10, 1992, addressed 
the issue of the proposed increase in excavation permit fees 
(Attachment IV). In that letter, the Water Department 
indicates there are some problems with the proposed new fee 
structure since the rates for the larger projects are higher 
and there should be economies of scale. Furthermore, the 
Water Department states that the increased fees will result in 
increased excavation permit fees paid by the Water 
Department of greater than $100,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



12. As previously noted, approval of this proposed legislation 
would grant blanket authority to the Director of Public Works 
to increase fees in the future without obtaining subsequent 
approval from the Board of Supervisors. 



Recommendation: Disapprove the proposed ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Attachment I 



n 



o| 

S" 3 
UJ 
a. 



a) 

UJ 

D 
Z 



CC 
Q 

< 
Lit 

CC 

D 
I- 

Q 

Lii 

CL 

2 



D 
Li. 

O 

P 
< 
> 
< 

o 



3 



g 

2 
CC 

m 

a. 

u. 
o 

d 

z 


I 

s 


o 

5 


o 

9 


o 

O) 


"I" 

o> 
1 

s 

>- 
u. 


5 


CVJ 
00 


3 


it O 

C/> CC 


8 
i 

o 


8 

1 
© 


8 



71 



Attachment II 



PROJECTED COSTS 

OF THE INSPECTION PROGRAM 

FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 



STAFF $783,000 

1-6318 : SECTION MANAGER 

1 - 6231 : SENIOR STREET INSPECTOR 

4 - 6230 : STREET INSPECTOR 

1-5364 : PLAN CHECKER 

1 - 1811 J MIS (RECORD AND BILLING) 

TRAINING 15 , 000 

AWSS PLAN CHECKING 15,000 

COMPUTERIZED PAVING AND UTILITY EXCAVATION COORDINATION ". . 30.000 

TOTAL S 843,000 



7? 



INSPECTION LEVEL 



Attachment III 



PERMITS 


$500,000 


$843,000 


LESS THAN 100 SQ.FT. 


COMPLAINT RESPONSE 


RANDOM INSPECTION 
6% OF PERMITS 


101 -500 SQ.FT. 


COMPLAINT RESPONSE 


ONCE A DAY 


GREATER THAN 601 SQ.FT. 


TWICE A DAY 


TWICE A DAY 



City and County of San Francisco 




Aciacnmen 
Page 1 of 

Public Utilities Commission 
San Francisco Water Department 



April 10, 1992 

RE: Excavation Permit Fees 
Proposed Amendment to 
Public Works Code Article 



Ms. Denise Brady- 
Acting Bureau Chief 
Department of Public Works 
Bureau of Subdivision, 
Surveys and Mapping 
City Hall - Room 352 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Dear Ms. Brady: 

Reference is made to your letter dated April 1, 1992 to Mr. Tom 
Dickerman relative to proposed amendment to Article 8 of the 
Public Works Code to change fees for excavation permits*. 

The proposed amendment will impact San Francisco Water 
Department operations in the following activities: 

1) Routine installations of new services, relocation and/or 
changes to existing services. Ordinarily these kinds .of 
work would involve excavations of 100 square feet or less. 

2) Repairs or required maintenance to existing services. 
These kinds of work can involve varying sizes of 
excavation, but would ordinarily fall within either of the 
two smaller groups, that is, less than 500, if not less 
than 100, square feet. 

3) Extensive work done under contract for main replacement or 
to improve our distribution system. Each of these 
contracts would involve excavations exceeding 500 square 
feet. 

In analyzing the proposal, we believe that the chages will 
result in increases amounting to more than $100,000 in 
excavation permit fees paid by the Water D«t> * l Luusnfc . 



Ik 



A-ttachir ent IV 
Page 



Ms. Denisa Brady 
April 10, 1992 
Page 2 



The Water Department annually obtains about 1,000 permits for 
work in Category 1 above; about 100 for Category 2; and about 
12 for Category 3. Assuming 75,350 and 4,000 square feet, 
respectively, for average amount of excavation in the three 
categories, the fees would be as follows: 

Present Fees Present Fee s P resent Fees 

Category 1 $34,000 $50,000 $16,000 



Category 2 
Category 3 



6,700 
8,160 



37,500 
74,400 



30,800 
66,240 



The increase in category 3 appears to be out of proportion to 
the total amount of work, and the rate structure ($0.25/square 
feet for small jobs and $1.50/square feet for large jobs) is 
inverted. Economies of scale indicate large jobs should cost 
less per square foot. Main replacement work is now funded by 
1991 SFWD bonds, and we are reluctant to consider this large 
increase in these expenditures against that funding with little 
advance notice. >, 

We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss 
this proposal as it affects us. Joe Pelayo of my staff will 
contact you for a meeting on the subject in the next few days. 

Very truly yours, 




1 Manager 



GT/TD/lv 

cc: T. Dickerman 
vu>r"Pelayo 

0487L-36 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 8 -File 64-92-6 
Department: 

Item: 

Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 
Lesson 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Municipal Railway 

(MUNI) 

Resolution authorizing the extension and modification of an 
existing lease of real property for the Public Utilities 
Commission, Municipal Railway 

Warehouse space and land area at 23rd Street and Illinois 
Street (a portion of Lot 10 in Assessor's Block 4232). 

Storage of streetcars, materials and equipment 

Harrigan and Weidenmuller Company 



No. of Sq. Ft 

and Cost Per Month: Approximately 85,000 square feet 
$22,750/month. 



$.268 per sq.ft. = 



Annual Cost: 

% Increase Over 
1991-92: 

Utilities and Janitor 
Services: 

Term of Lease: 

Escalation: 

Source of Funds: 



Comments: 



$273,000 



4 percent 



Paid for by City 

July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1997 (five years) 

Monthly rent is subject to annual consumer price index 
increases under the terms of the proposed lease. 

MUNI Operating Funds - The $273,000 annual rental 
amount has been included in the PUC's 1992-93 budget 
request. 

1. MUNI has leased space at the 23rd Street and Illinois 
Street location since 1987. As noted above, in addition to 
authorizing the extension of the proposed lease, the 
proposed resolution would also authorize a modification of 
the proposed lease. The proposed lease has been modified to 
change the term of the lease from one year to five years. The 
proposed lease results in an increase in the monthly rental 
amount of $872 or approximately 4 percent, from $21,878 to 
$22,750. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



2. According to Mr. Steve Legnitto of the Real Estate 
Department, the monthly rental amount of $22,750 
represents the fair market rental value of the property. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 Committee Meeting 

Item 9 - File 97-92-30 

Department Department of Parking and Traffic 

Item: Ordinance amending Chapter 10B of the San Francisco 

Administrative Code by adding Sections 10B.16 through 
10B.20 thereto, providing for recovery of costs for additional 
parking enforcement and traffic control and related services 
rendered by the Department of Parking and Traffic. 

Description: In November 1988, San Francisco voters approved Proposition 

D, which created Charter Section 3.698, establishing the 
Department of Parking and Traffic. On May 4, 1992, the 
Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance amending the 
Traffic Code to transfer a number of traffic control 
authorities, in whole or in part, from other City agencies to 
the Department of Parking and Traffic. 

The proposed ordinance would now amend Chapter 10B of 
the Administrative Code to permit the Department of Parking 
and Traffic (DPT) to recover costs for services it provides on 
behalf of any person, corporation, firm, or organization 
requesting its services. The language of the proposed 
ordinance is substantially similar to existing provisions of 
Chapter 10B of the Administrative Code which stipulate that 
organizations requesting additional services "shall pay [to 
the Police Department or the Department of Public Works] 
such sums as may be necessary to cover the actual costs of 
the services." 



Comments: 1. According to Mr. Tim Johnson of the Department of 

Parking and Traffic, since many of the functions previously 
assigned to the Police Department or DPW have been 
transferred to DPT, the proposed ordinance will provide a 
mechanism whereby the City and County will continue to be 
able to recover costs for parking and traffic control services. 
The services to be provided by DPT for public events would 
principally involve traffic re-routing, pedestrian and traffic 
control, and safety monitoring on the day of the event. 

According to Mr. Johnson, the Police Department will 
continue to act as the lead agency with respect to traffic and 
safety monitoring activities for public events. DPT will 
augment the services of the Police Department by providing 
additional personnel for these events. 

2. Mr. John Kay, a fiscal officer for the Police Department, 
observed that notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 10B 
(the subject of the proposed ordinance), other provisions of the 
Administrative Code limit the ability of the Police 



78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 Committee Meeting 



Department to recover its costs for services related to street 
fairs. Mr. Kay has calculated that the City failed to recover 
$325,501 for Police services provided for street fairs during 
fiscal year 1990-91. It is unclear from the proposed ordinance 
how DPT would be affected by the limitations on 
departmental cost recovery for street fairs. 

The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 10B of the 
Administrative Code, which provides that community 
organizations "shall pay... such sums of money as may be 
necessary to pay for the additional services." The Police 
Department is also authorized by Chapter 10B to charge an 
additional 22.5 percent of its total personnel costs as indirect 
expenses. The proposed ordinance appears to grant to DPT 
similar authority, requiring payment of "such sums of 
money as the Director [of DPT] estimates shall be necessary 
to cover the actual costs of the services to be provided." 

In fact, the Police Department and DPW are prevented under 
Section 2.70-6 of the Administrative Code from receiving full 
reimbursement for the cost of providing additional services to 
the community for street fairs. This Section outlines the fees 
which must be paid for City services in connection with street 
fairs and states that "no other fee for conducting a street fair 
shall be assessed." DPW's costs are not referenced in the fee 
schedule, and the Police Department is limited to 
reimbursement of 40 percent of its actual costs or $2,500, 
whichever is less. 

Mr. Kay indicates further that the Police Department is now 
preparing a proposal for consideration by the Board of 
Supervisors which would amend the Administrative Code to 
permit full reimbursement, including indirect costs, for 
Police services related to street fairs. The proposal has not 
yet been submitted to the Police Commission. 

Therefore, although Administrative Code Chapter 10B 
appears to provide for full reimbursement to the City for 
services provided to "any person, corporation, firm, or 
organization desiring additional personnel, equipment or 
materials," for special events, sponsors of street fairs 
remitted only 8.4 percent of the City's actual costs ($29,956 
recovered of personnel costs of $355,457) for requested 
additional services in 1990-91. 

Since the proposed ordinance amends Chapter 10B only, and 
does not address the restrictions contained in Section 2.70-6, 
it does not clarify how organizers of street fairs are to be billed 
for the services of DPT. Unless the services of DPT were 
specifically referenced in Section 2.70-6, it is unlikely that 
organizers of street fairs could be required to reimburse the 
City for DPT's services. 



79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 Committee Meeting 



In contrast, reimbursements for the costs of athletic events 
are governed by Sections 2.75-4 and 2.75-5 of the 
Administrative Code, which provide for reimbursement to be 
made to the Police Department or DPW, respectively, 
"pursuant to Chapter 10B of this Code." The Departments 
are therefore able to require reimbursement of 100 percent of 
the costs they incur for services provided for athletic events, 
and the Police Department also receives 22.5 percent of its 
personnel costs to cover indirect expenses. However, no 
proposed legislation is available to clarify DPT's treatment of 
costs associated with athletic events, by incorporating DPT in 
the references of Section 2.75. 

3. Mr. Johnson indicates that the Department of Parking 
and Traffic has not yet instituted polices and procedures for 
cost recovery under the proposed ordinance, but will do so 
when and if the proposed ordinance is adopted. He indicates, 
however, that sponsors and organizers of public events would 
be billed in advance based on the Department's estimated 
costs, using procedures now in place through the City's 
Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Transportation and 
Traffic. 

According to Mr. Johnson, employees of DPT would provide 
services which have previously been provided by the Police 
Department. The costs of DPT's services, and the associated 
level of reimbursement, would depend on the extent to which 
Traffic Control Officers were used instead of Police Officers to 
monitor public events. 

4. Mr. Johnson indicates that the Department of Parking 
and Traffic would probably not include indirect costs in the 
calculation of its service costs, and he believes that very few 
administrative expenses would be incurred, since costs 
would consist primarily of staff salaries on the day of the 
event. 

5 According to Sgt. Burt Olson of the San Francisco Police 
Department, who is responsible for planning and budgeting 
Police services for special community events, Police services 
for special events usually include inspecting the proposed 
site, creating and posting "No Parking" signs in affected 
area, delivering and picking up street barriers in connection 
with the event, and providing traffic and safety monitoring on 
the day of the event. 

Sgt. Olson indicates that there is no plan of which he is 
aware to coordinate the services of the Police Department and 
DPT for the provision of traffic and safety monitoring for 
public events. 



an 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 Committee Meeting 

Mr. Kay indicated that the Police Department has employed a 
larger number of officers on motorcycles for special events 
since the transfer of Parking Control Officers to DPT, at a 
cost which is probably somewhat higher than if Parking 
Control Officers were used. 

6. Because of the need to include references to the 
Department of Parking and Traffic in additional sections of 
the Administrative Code, and to establish reimbursement 
rates which are consistent among City departments, Mr. 
Johnson has requested that the matter be continued so that 
he may collaborate with the Police Department on the text of 
proposed amendments to the Administrative Code. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed ordinance, as requested by the 
Department of Parking and Traffic, pending receipt of 
proposed legislation from the Department which would 
amend all relevant sections of the Administrative Code 
regarding references to the Department of Parking and 
Traffic, and which would be consistent with existing or 
proposed Administrative Code sections governing 
reimbursements to the Police Department and DPW. 



81 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Items 10. 11. 12 and 13 - Files 170-92-5. 170-92-6. 170-92-7 and 170-92-8 

Items: Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 

and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of 
correctional facilities, to replace the existing San Bruno Jail 
facilities, including replacement, housing, associated health and 
safety improvements and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction, and that the estimated cost of $158,100,000 is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of the City and County and will require the 
incurring of a bonded indebtedness (File 170-92-5). 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 
and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of long 
term care facilities, including replacement of Laguna Honda 
Hospital facilities, improvements to existing Laguna Honda 
Hospital structures, and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction and that the estimated cost of $548,400,000 is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual 
income and revenue of the City and County and will require the 
incurring of a bonded indebtedness (File 170-92-6). 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 
and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of a 
Juvenile Justice Complex, including health and safety 
improvements, asbestos management, disabled access and 
structural and security improvements to the existing Youth 
Guidance Center and Juvenile Hall, a new Juvenile Justice 
Complex and community based facilities and that the estimated 
cost of $78,900,000 is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and County and 
will require the. incurring of a bonded indebtedness (File 170-92- 
7). 

Resolution determining and declaring that the public interest 
and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of Fire 
Department facilities, including seismic strengthening, asbestos 
abatement, disabled access, separate bathroom and changing 
areas for male and female firefighters, improvements to the 
auxiliary water supply system and that the estimated cost of 
$97,000,000 is and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary 
annual income and revenue of the City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness (File 170-92-8). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Comments: These four General Obligation bond measures have been 

calendared solely for the purpose of hearing presentations by 
departments. There are no reports by the Capital Improvement 
Advisory Committee (CIAC) on these bond measures. 

According to the May 27, 1992 Finance Committee calendar, it is 
the intention of the Chair of the Finance Committee to continue 
these four General Obligation bond measures to the June 10, 
1992 Finance Committee meeting. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 14 - File 121-92-5 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter VIII of the San 
Francisco Municipal Code (Police Code), by amending 
Article 1, Section 38 to add one designated Officer for 
the purpose of enforcing laws related to littering. 

Article 1, Section 38 of the Municipal Code defines those 
classifications empowered to enforce laws related to 
littering. The proposed ordinance would add an 8240 
Environmental Control Officer to the list of 
classifications empowered to enforce laws related to 
littering. 

1. The proposed ordinance would amend the Municipal 
Code to add an 8240 Environmental Control Officer. 
According to Civil Service, the classification number for 
an Environmental Control Officer is 8280. Therefore, if 
approved, the proposed ordinance should be amended to 
add an 8280 Environmental Control Officer, not an 8240 
Environmental Control Officer. 

2. According to Mr. John Roumbanis of the DPW, since 
Environmental Control Officers already enforce litter 
violations, the proposed resolution would simply update 
the Municipal Code to reflect current practices. 
Therefore, the proposed resolution would result in no 
additional costs to the City. 

Amend the proposed resolution to add an 8280 
Environmental Control Officer, not an 8240 
Environmental Control Officer, and approve as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 15 - File 12-92-21 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution urging San Francisco's Legislative Advocate to 
urge San Francisco's State legislative delegation to 
introduce legislation directing the Municipal Court to 
transmit information to the Tax Collector of outstanding 
litter violations prior to the renewal of a business license. 

The Tax Collector issues and renews business licenses, 
while the Municipal Court collects penalties for business 
litter violations. According to the proposed resolution, the 
Municipal Court is not directed to report businesses who 
have outstanding litter violations to the Tax Collector, and 
therefore the Tax Collector has no record of such 
businesses. If the Tax Collector were furnished with such 
information, he could withhold renewal of a business license 
to businesses that have outstanding litter violations until 
the fines associated with those violations are paid, 
according to the proposed resolution. 

1. The penalty for violations of City Utter laws, such as laws 
regarding dumping, sidewalk receptacles, and rubbish, is 
$76. The penalty for a violation of the State Penal Code 
regarding litter is $135. If a business owner is cited for 
violating litter laws but does not pay the bail, under the 
current system, a warrant is issued for that individual's 
arrest. 



2. Mr. Gordon Park Li of the Municipal Court estimates 
that there are currently less than 100 outstanding litter 
violations. Mr. Park Li advises that the Municipal Court 
has never analyzed the percentage of litter violations that 
are collected, but reports that 69 percent of parking 
violations are typically collected. 

3. To the extent that outstanding litter violations are 
collected, revenue to the City increases. However, the 
proposed resolution would not require the Tax Collector to 
withhold renewal of a business license until fines associated 
with those violations are paid, and no other legislation 
currently makes that requirement. According to Mr. 
Richard Sullivan of the Tax Collector's Office, the Tax 
Collector presently withholds a business license if a 
business has outstanding taxes or license fees, but does not 
withhold a business license if a business has outstanding 
fines. The proposed legislation would also not require that 
the Tax Collector withhold licenses to such businesses. 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



4. Mr. Park Li advises that the Municipal Court currently 
provides lists of individuals with over ten parking violations 
to the Department of Parking and Traffic at the request of 
the Department of Parking and Traffic. According to Mr. 
Park Li, the Board of Supervisors or the Tax Collector could 
request directly that the Municipal Court provide such 
information, without going through the State Legislature. 
Therefore, according to Mr. Park Li, instead of adopting 
legislation, the Board of Supervisors or the Tax Collector 
could direct that a letter be sent requesting that the 
Municipal Court routinely provide the Tax Collector with a 
list of businesses that have outstanding litter violations. 
Alternatively, the proposed legislation could be amended to 
request that the Municipal Court provide the Tax Collector 
with a list of businesses with outstanding litter violations, 
rather than urging the Legislative Advocate to urge the 
State Legislature to direct the Municipal Court to provide 
the Tax Collector with such a list. 

5. According to Mr. Park Li, litter violations are currently 
not recorded by business name, but rather by the name of 
an individual. Mr. Park Li reports that if a cited individual 
does not pay the litter violation penalty, a warrant is issued 
for that person's arrest, and a business cannot be arrested. 
However, according to Mr. Park Li, if business licenses are 
withheld as a form of enforcement, instead of arrest, 
citations could be issued to businesses and records 
organized by business could be made available, without 
additional costs to the City. As noted above, there are 
currently estimated to be 100 outstanding litter violations. 
The portion of such violations that could have been issued 
to businesses instead of individuals is unknown at this 
time. 

6. If sanctions, such as a requirement that businesses pay 
outstanding litter violations before receiving a license 
renewal, impelled businesses to pay outstanding litter 
violations, such businesses might be discouraged from 
littering. To the extent that businesses are discouraged 
from littering, the City would be cleaner. 

7. In summary, the Board of Supervisors could direct that a 
letter be sent requesting that the Municipal Court routinely 
provide the Tax Collector with a list of businesses that have 
outstanding litter violations. Such a request would not 
require legislation. Alternatively, the proposed legislation 
could be amended to request that the Municipal Court 
provide the Tax Collector with a list of businesses with 
outstanding litter violations. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



86 






Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution with consideration to 
the aforementioned amendment in Comment No. 7 above, is 
a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

87 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 16 - Files 26-92-1 

Items: Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 

urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to 
consider legislation to increase the penalty for street 
cleaning parking violations from $15 to $20. 

Description: Currently, streets are cleaned mechanically using 

vehicles equipped with hydraulically-powered brushes 
and vacuums. Such street sweeping occurs at regularly 
scheduled times, such as, for example, Tuesdays from 
noon to 2 pm. Vehicles which are parked on the street 
during a time designated for mechanical street cleaning 
are fined $15 because the mechanical street cleaner is 
unable to clean areas where vehicles are parked. The 
proposed resolution would urge the Chief Administrative 
Officer to urge the Director of the Department of Public 
Works to consider legislation to increase the penalty for 
a street cleaning parking violation from $15 to $20. 

Comments: 1. The Department of Public Works does not have the 

authority to increase the bail for a street cleaning 
parking violation. Rather, it is the Municipal Court that 
has the authority to increase the bail for a street 
cleaning parking violation. 

2. The Department of Parking and Traffic recently 
surveyed bail amount for street cleaning parking 
violations in eight U.S. cities. The bail amount for street 
sweeping parking violations in these eight cities is as 
follows: 



Pasadena 


$20 


Sacramento 


21 


Alameda 


22 


Oakland 


23 


San Jose 


26 


Los Angeles 


30 


New York 


35 


Chicago 


50 



The current $15 bail is 33 percent lower than the next 
lowest bail in the survey. If the bail were increased to 
$20, as proposed, the new bail amount would still be 
among the lowest charged by the eight cities. Mr. Tim 
Johnson of the Department of Parking and Traffic 
advises that street cleaning bail amounts have not been 
increased in four years. 



88 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



3. According to Mr. Johnson, the Department of Parking 
and Traffic has requested that the Municipal Court 
increase the amount of street cleaning parking violation 
penalty to $23. Mr. Gordon Park- Li of the Municipal 
Court advises that the Municipal Court is anticipated to 
approve the Department of Parking and Traffic's request 
to increase such penalties by $8, to $23, of which $2.50 is 
to go to a Courthouse Construction Special Fund and $1 
is to go to the State General Fund. Thus, the net 
increase to the General Fund is $4.50 per penalty. 

4. In FY 1990-91, 741,299 street cleaning parking 
citations were issued, according to the Department of 
Parking and Traffic. The Department of Parking and 
Traffic advises that in general, 69 percent of such 
violations are collected. Based on an increase of $5 for 69 
percent of 741,299 citations, an increase in bail of $5 
would result in a net increase to the General Fund of 
$1.50 (because $2.50 would go the Courthouse 
Construction Special Fund and $1 would go to the State 
General Fund). Thus, $767,245 in additional annual 
revenues to the City would accrue as a result of an 
increase in parking violation fines to $20, less the 
revenue which would not be collected if the increased 
penalty would encourage individuals not to park 
illegally during mechanical street cleaning scheduled 
times. 

As noted above, the penalty is anticipated to be 
increased to $23, an $8.00 increase of which $2.50 is to 
go to the Courthouse Construction Special Fund, and $1 
is to go to the State General Fund, for a net increase to 
the General Fund of $4.50. Based on the above 
assumptions, additional annual revenues of 
approximately $2,301,733 would be collected, less the 
revenue which would not be collected if the increased 
penalty would encourage individuals not to park 
illegally during mechanical street cleaning scheduled 
times. An increase in the penalty for street cleaning 
parking violations might discourage individuals from 
parking in the street cleaning areas at the designated 
times. In that case, the mechanical street cleaner would 
be enabled to clean the streets more thoroughly in that 
area. To the extent that individuals are discouraged 
from parking in street cleaning areas at designated 
times, the streets would be cleaner. 



89 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

5. The City has a policy of encouraging the use of public 
transportation. Since, according to the Mayor's Office, 
Municipal Railway fares are proposed to be increased in 
the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget, the Board of 
Supervisors may wish to authorize an increase in 
parking violations in a commensurate amount so as not 
to encourage the use of private vehicles over public 
transportation. The proposed resolution would urge that 
the violation for street cleaning be increased by 33 
percent, from $15 to $20. The increase to $23 anticipated 
to be approved by the Municipal Court would represent 
a 53 percent increase. 

6. According to Mr. John Roumbanis of the Department 
of Public Works, the DPW has already requested that 
the street cleaning penalty be increased from $15 to $20 
by the Municipal Court, and that revenue from such an 
increase be designated for street cleaning activities. 
However, as noted above, the Department of Parking 
and Traffic has requested and the Municipal Court is 
anticipated to approve an increase in street cleaning 
parking violations to $23. Any additional revenue 
collected because of increased fines would go to the 
General Fund. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 

the Board of Supervisors. 



on 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 27, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 17 - Files 26-92-2 
Items: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 
urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to 
increase the frequency of mechanical street sweeping in 
the designated downtown areas, and urging that the 
mechanical street sweeping program be expanded to 
include additional areas. 

According to the proposed resolution, the downtown 
areas of San Francisco are the most traveled and the 
most visible in the City. Some areas of downtown San 
Francisco are heavily affected by the impact of litter, 
according to the proposed resolution, and increasing the 
frequency of mechanical street sweeping would clean the 
streets and create an atmosphere generally more 
conducive to commerce and more pleasing to the eye. 
Also, according to the proposed resolution, some 
residential areas of San Francisco are not currently 
being serviced by mechanical street sweeping. The 
proposed resolution would urge the Chief Administrative 
Officer to urge the Director of the Department of Public 
Works to increase the frequency of mechanical street 
sweeping in the designated downtown areas by 
submitting a proposal for additional days, streets and 
hours to the Board of Supervisors for approval, and 
would further urge that the mechanical street sweeping 
program be expanded to include additional areas. 

1. Mr. John Busher of the Department of Public Works 
(DPW) advises that the DPW is empowered to alter the 
frequency and routes of mechanical street sweeping 
without approval of the Board of Supervisors. Therefore, 
the DPW is requesting that the proposed resolution be 
amended to delete lines five and six of page two of the 
proposed resolution urging the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to submit a proposal for 
additional days, streets and hours to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval. If the proposed resolution were 
amended in such a manner, the proposed resolution 
would still urge the Department of Public Works to 
increase the frequency of mechanical street sweeping in 
the designated downtown areas, and urge that the 
mechanical street sweeping program be expanded to 
include additional areas. 

2. Mr. John Roumbanis of the Department of Public 
Works (DPW) advises that the DPW is in accord with 
the proposed resolution. The DPW requested $140,989 in 



Memo to Finance Committee 

May 27, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 

its 1992-93 budget for the purpose of increasing 
mechanical street sweeping to daily cleaning in 
designated downtown areas. 

3. According to Mr. Roumbanis, the DPW has recently 
increased street sweeping in various other areas of San 
Francisco, including the entire length of Haight Street 
and Mission Street from 14th Street to Geneva Avenue. 

Recommendations: If the Board of Supervisors wishes to comply with the 

DPWs request, amend the proposed resolution to delete 
lines five and six of page two of the proposed resolution 
urging the Director of the Department of Public Works 
to submit a proposal for additional days, streets and 
hours to the Board of Supervisors for approval. 

Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 



q? 



' Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Items 18 and 23 - Files 217-92-1 and 217-92-6 

Items: Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 

institute a neighborhood outreach program to inform 
eligible groups of the Neighborhood Beautification Fund 
and to encourage them to apply for funding to purchase 
trashcans and steam-cleaning services. (File 217-92-1) 

Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 
urge the Director of the Department of Public Works to 
double the number of trashcans on City streets. (File 
217-92-6) 

Description: According to the proposed resolution (File 217-92-1), an 

increase in the number of trashcans on the streets would 
reduce the amount of litter, and steam-cleaning is an 
effective method of reducing grime on sidewalks. The 
proposed resolution (File 217-92-6) would urge the Chief 
Administrative Officer to urge the Director of the 
Department of Public Works to double the number of 
trashcans on City streets. 

According to Mr. John Roumbanis of the DPW, there are 
currently 2,500 public trashcans in the City, at a cost of 
$300 each, including tax and delivery. Therefore, the 
cost of purchasing double the number of trashcans, or an 
additional 2,500 trashcans, would be $750,000, ($300 
times 2,500). Mr. Roumbanis advises that the cost of 
maintaining the additional trash cans is estimated to be 
approximately $375,000 annually. Thus, the total cost of 
the proposed resolution would be $1,125,000, including a 
one-time cost of $750,000 and an annual maintenance 
cost of $375,000 (File 217-92-6). 

Proposition D, which was approved by the voters in the 
June, 1990 election, established a Neighborhood 
Beautification and Graffiti Clean-Up Fund consisting of 
donated money and Payroll Expense Taxes so 
designated by employers. According to the Charter, the 
fund is intended to promote neighborhood beautification 
projects, including projects designed to improve the 
environmental quality of neighborhoods, and finance the 
clean-up of graffiti on public property. Non-profit 
neighborhood groups, community groups, and 
businesses may apply for grants from the Clean-Up 
Fund to institute neighborhood clean-up programs, 
including the purchase of trashcans and steam-cleaning 
services. The source of the monies deposited in the 
Clean-Up Fund are derived from donations and up to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

one percent of Payroll Expense Taxes designated by 
employers. The current balance in the Clean-Up Fund is 
$290,000. The proposed resolution would encourage 
neighborhood groups to apply for grants from the Clean- 
Up Fund to purchase litter receptacles and steam 
cleaners (File 217-92-1). 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Kim Fowler of the Neighborhood 

Beautification and Clean-Up Fund, this is the second 
year of the fund. Ms. Fowler advises that $221,000 was 
granted to 25 organizations from the Clean-Up Fund in 
1990-91. The Clean-Up Fund has $290,000 available in 
its 1991-92 budget to make grants, and has received 
requests for funding for beautification projects totalling 
approximately $1.5 million, Ms. Fowler advises. Funds 
for 1991-92 are entirely committed, Ms. Fowler reports. 
Funds will be distributed to the grantees in June 1992, 
for use in 1992-93. Grants have not yet been distributed 
because the first part of 1991-92 was spent in 
advertising the fund and providing information to 
applicants, receiving and reviewing applications, and 
making allocation decisions (File 217-92-1). 

2. Ms. Fowler reports that the current outreach program 
consists of mailing letters to 300 community groups 
concerned with neighborhood beautification. This letter 
invites such organizations to workshops and informs 
them of the application deadline. Applications are 
mailed to organizations upon request. Past grantees 
automatically receive applications in the mail. The 
Clean-Up Fund conducts a workshop to help applicants 
through the application process. In addition, the Clean- 
Up Fund sends press releases and public service 
announcements to local newspapers and radio stations. 
Ms. Fowler appeared on two radio shows in 1991-92 to 
advertise the fund (File 217-92-1). 

3. Ms. Fowler reports that Clean-Up Fund grants are 
not limited to the purchase of litter receptacles and 
steam cleaners. According to Ms. Fowler, funding 
requests include a broad range of proposed projects, 
such as the purchase of litter receptacles, rental of 
steam cleaning equipment, tree planting, hiring persons 
to clean up neighborhoods, and graffiti removal. In 1991- 
92, all requests for trash receptacles were funded 
($13,640). $17,600 was awarded for steam cleaning 
equipment and services. (All but one request for steam 
cleaning equipment was funded, Ms. Fowler reports.) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

4. Ms. Fowler advises that the Clean-Up Fund, which is 
under the jurisdiction of the Chief Administrative 
Officer is exploring the possibility of retaining 
ownership of equipment if grants are made for the 
purchase of equipment. If the Clean-Up Fund retains 
ownership of such equipment and an organization 
becomes defunct, the Clean-Up Fund would then be 
empowered to redistribute such equipment to another 
organization. According to Ms. Fowler, the 1991-92 
applications contain no requests for major equipment. 
This year's purchase requests include requests for 
brooms, scoops, trash receptacles and garbage bags. 

5. The intent of the author of the proposed resolutions is 
that no General Fund monies will be expended to 
implement the proposed programs. 

Recommendations: Approval of the proposed resolution, which would result 

in a cost to the General Fund of $1,125,000, including a 
one-time cost of $750,000 and an annual cost of 
$375,000, is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors 
(File 217-92-6). 

Approval of the proposed resolution to urge the Chief 
Administrative Officer to institute a neighborhood 
outreach program to inform eligible groups of the 
Neighborhood Beautification and Graffiti Clean-Up 
Fund and to encourage them to apply for funding to 
purchase trashcans and steam cleaning services is a 
policy matter for the Board of Supervisors (File 217-92- 
2). 






BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

95 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 19 - File 217-92-2 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 
develop a component within the City's Recycling 
Program that would provide reusable bags to renters for 
the purpose of collecting and depositing recyclable 
materials, and urging that such provision be supported 
by a public/private partnership. 

The proposed resolution concerns the provision of 
reusable bags to renters for the purpose of collecting and 
depositing recyclable materials, and urging that such 
provision be supported by a public/private partnership. 
Currently, residents in rental buildings containing six or 
more apartment units do not receive individual recycling 
receptacles, but instead must bring their recyclables to a 
central location in the building. According to the 
proposed resolution, recycling has contributed to a 
reduction of bottles and cans on the streets in recent 
years. 

The proposed resolution is designed to encourage 
apartment dwellers to recycle by urging the Chief 
Administrative Officer to develop a component within 
the City's recycling program that would provide reusable 
bags to each unit in apartment buildings. Tenants would 
then have a means to transport recycling from their 
units to their building's centralized recycling area. 

1. Ms. Amy Perlmutter of the San Francisco Recycling 
Program advises that it is difficult for the Recycling 
Program to specifically target outreach to apartment 
dwellers, since there is no separate mailing list that 
separates apartment dwellers from other San Francisco 
residents. Ms. Perlmutter advises that contacts with 
apartment dwellers are generally made through the 
individual who pays the garbage bill. No landlords have 
been approached regarding distributing reusable 
recycling bags to their tenants. According to Ms. 
Perlmutter, apartment dwellers participate as actively 
in the Recycling Program as the general population of 
San Francisco. 

2. Ms. Perlmutter reports that individuals who live in 
apartment buildings sometimes collect their recycling in 
discardable plastic bags, then dispose of the plastic bag 
with the cans and bottles in the centralized recycling 
bin. According to Ms. Perlmutter, such plastic bags are 
not recycled in San Francisco and cause problems in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



96 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

recycling system. Ms. Perlmutter advises that providing 
reusable bags for recycling might discourage apartment 
dwellers from discarding non-recyclable plastic bags in 
the recycling bins, because tenants who would use 
recyclable bags provided by the City could retain their 
bags rather than discarding them with their bottles and 
cans. 

3. The proposed legislation does not specify the type of 
reusable recycling bags that would be provided, such as 
plastic, cloth, rubber or paper. Ms. Perlmutter advises 
that the Recycling Program has not previously 
considered providing reusable recycling bags for 
apartment dwellers. However, Ms. Perlmutter advises, 
buckets were considered at one point. Therefore, the 
Recycling Program has not yet developed cost estimates 
or estimated the number of such bags that would be 
needed at this time. 

4. As of the writing of this report, no specific information 
was available regarding the type of private/public 
partnership that might support reusable recycling bags. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 

for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



97 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 20 - File 217-92-3 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 
urge the Director of Public Works to implement cleaning 
of the United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza on 
weekends and holidays that fall on weekdays. 

United Nations Plaza, located at Market Street and 
Leavenworth Street, and Hallidie Plaza, located at the 
underground Powell Street Station for the Municipal 
Railway, are cleaned every day except Saturdays, 
Sundays, and holidays. The proposed resolution would 
urge the Chief Administrative Officer to urge the 
Director of Public Works to implement cleaning of the 
United Nations Plaza and Hallidie Plaza on Saturdays, 
Sundays and holidays. 

1. Mr. John Roumbanis of the Department of Public 
Works advises that United Nations Plaza and Hallidie 
Plaza are particularly in need of consistent cleaning. 
According to Mr. Roumbanis, a number of homeless 
persons spend time in these plazas, but the plazas 
contain no public restrooms. As a result, the areas 
become dirty quickly, Mr. Roumbanis reports. 

2. The Department of Public Works has requested 
$25,000 to be included in its fiscal year 1992-93 budget 
for the purpose of cleaning, particularly steam-cleaning, 
the United Nations and Hallidie Plazas, Mr. Roumbanis 
reports. 

3. Mr. Roumbanis advises that the DPW recently 
negotiated with the unions to allow mechanical street 
sweeper operators to work on Saturdays without 
receiving overtime pay, as long as Saturdays are 
included in such an employee's regular weekly shift. The 
DPW estimates that to implement cleaning of the 
United Nations and Hallidie Plazas on Saturdays, 
Sundays and holidays would cost $264,602 annually, 
including overtime and all other costs. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



98 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 21 - File 217-92-4 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



The proposed resolution would urge the Mayor to urge 
the Chief of Police to enforce provisions of the California 
Vehicle Code that require vehicles transporting certain 
materials to be covered to prevent the material from 
spilling or falling from the vehicle. 

According to the proposed resolution, Section 23115 of 
the California Vehicle Code requires a vehicle loaded 
with garbage, swill, cans, bottles, wastepapers, ashes, 
refuse, trash or rubbish, or any other noisome, nauseous, 
or offensive matter, or anything being transported to a 
dump site for disposal to be moved with a covering in a 
manner which prevents the load from spilling or falling 
from the vehicle. The bail schedule of the Municipal 
Court establishes a fine in the amount of $82 for the 
violation of Section 23115. 

1. Mr. Dennis Martel of the Police Department advises 
that, although the Police Department does enforce 
Section 23115 of the State Vehicle Code, the primary 
mission of the Police Department's Code enforcement is 
to focus on traffic violations that may cause injury 
accidents. If the proposed resolution were approved, Mr. 
Martel reports that the Police Department would 
sensitize Police Officers to violations of the Code 
requiring vehicles transporting certain materials to be 
covered. Officers would be reminded that these 
violations can impact quality of life in neighborhoods, 
and that they are expected to enforce the Code if they 
observe violations. 

2. According to Mr. Martel, approval of the proposed 
resolution would result in no measurable increase in 
costs, because no additional personnel would be hired to 
carry out the proposed resolution. To the extent that 
additional citations are issued and fines are collected, 
some additional revenues may result, although the 
number of citations and the amount of revenues, if any, 
cannot be determined at this time. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



99 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 22 - File 217-92-5 



Item: 



Description: 



Comment: 



Recommendation: 



Resolution urging the Mayor and the Chief 
Administrative Officer to develop a coordinated public 
education campaign which encourages merchants and 
residents to keep the streets clean and inform the public 
about anti-littering laws and penalties. 

According to the proposed resolution, many merchants 
and City residents are unaware of laws regarding litter 
disposal. For example, many merchants believe that 
litter may be swept into the street at any time, when in 
fact litter may only be swept into the street one hour 
before street sweeping times. The proposed resolution 
urges the Mayor and the Chief Administrative Officer to 
develop a coordinated public education campaign which 
encourages merchants and residents to keep the streets 
clean and informs the public about anti-littering laws 
and penalties. 

As of the writing of this report, no information was 
available as to what type of coordinated education 
campaign should be implemented. Therefore, the Budget 
Analyst is unable to determine the cost of such a 
program. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



100 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 



Item 24- File 217-92-7 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Resolution urging the Chief Administrative Officer to 
consider introducing legislation that would limit the 
hours that recycling bins may be left on the sidewalk. 

The proposed resolution would urge the Chief 
Administrative Officer to consider introducing 
legislation that would limit the hours that recycling bins 
may be left on the sidewalk. According to the proposed 
resolution, violation of laws prohibiting removal of the 
contents of recycling containers by unauthorized persons 
results in fastened debris being unfastened and blown 
onto the public sidewalk and street areas. This leads to 
increased litter on the streets. Allowing recycling bins to 
be placed on City sidewalks only on the morning of 
collection would eliminate the possibility for persons to 
remove the contents of recycling bins during the night, 
and considerably reduce the amount of litter on City 
streets, according to the proposed resolution. 

1. Mr. John Roumbanis of the Department of Public 
Works confirms that the recycling program has led to an 
increase in litter on the City streets. 

2. Ms. Amy Perlmutter of the Recycling Program advises 
that every piece of literature produced by the Recycling 
Program requests that recyclers place their recycling 
bins on the sidewalk the morning of pick-up instead of 
the preceding evening, except in those cases where pick- 
up occurs before seven in the morning. However, Ms. 
Perlmutter advises that no law requires that recyclers 
place their bins out in the morning rather than in the 
evening. 

Specific restrictions regarding the hours that recycling 
bins may be left on the sidewalk, such as enforcement 
and penalties for violation of such a law, could be 
included in legislation. However, as of the writing of this 
report, the specific details have not been provided. 
Without such information, the costs of this program 
cannot be estimated. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter 
for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVIS O RS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



101 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 25- File 217-92-8 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution urging the Department of Public Works to 
consider introducing legislation increasing the fine for illegal 
dumping of refuse from $52 to $500. 

According to the proposed resolution, the dumping of 
furniture, home appliances, potentially toxic substances, and 
other materials (1) creates an eyesore as well as potential 
health risks for residents and visitors to San Francisco; (2) 
exhibits a disregard for our natural environment and for 
proper disposal methods; and (3) poses health risks. The 
proposed resolution would urge the Department of Public 
Works to consider introducing legislation increasing the fine 
for illegal dumping of refuse from $52 to $500. 

1. According to Mr. John Busher of the Department of Public 
Works (DPW), the fine for illegal dumping of refuse is 
currently between $100 and $1,000. However, Mr. Busher 
advises, the bail for such violations is $52. Since the bail for 
violations is lower than the fine , persons who are cited for 
illegal dumping violations typically forfeit their bail rather 
than appearing before a judge to be fined, Mr. Busher 
reports. Since fines are set by the Municipal Court, which 
hears illegal dumping cases, the DPW does not have the 
authority to increase such fines. 

2. If the intent of the proposed resolution is to increase the 
bail for illegal dumping rather than to increase the fine for 
illegal dumping, then the proposed resolution should be 
directed to the Municipal Court, instead of the DPW since 
DPW does not have the authority to increase bail amounts for 
illegal dumping. If the intent of the proposed resolution is to 
increase the bail for illegal dumping, the proposed legislation 
should be amended to urge the Municipal Court to increase 
the bail for illegal dumping, instead of urging the DPW to 
increase the fine for illegal dumping. 

3. Mr. John Roumbanis of the DPW reports that in February 
1992, DPW recommended to the Municipal Court that the 
bail for illegal dumping be increased from $52 to $500. 



102 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Recommendations: 1. If the intention of the proposed resolution is to increase the 
bail rather than the fine for illegal dumping, the proposed 
legislation should be amended to urge the Municipal Court to 
increase the bail for illegal dumping, instead of urging the 
DPW to increase the fine for illegal dumping. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supex-visors. 



103 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

Item 26 - File 217-92-9 

Item: Resolution urging the Department of Public Works to direct 

its resources so as to reduce litter in neighborhoods that are 
most affected. 

Description: According to the proposed resolution, some neighborhoods, 

including but not limited to the Mission, Chinatown, South of 
Market and Downtown, are particularly affected by the sharp 
increase in the amount of litter on San Francisco's streets. 
The proposed resolution would urge the Department of Public 
Works to direct its resources so as to reduce litter in 
neighborhoods that are most affected. 

Comments: 1. Mr. John Roumbanis of the DPW advises that the DPW is 

presently targeting neighborhoods most affected by litter. For 
example, Mr. Roumbanis advises that three new workfare 
crews of ten workers each have been created as of April 1992. 
These new workfare crews have been placed: (1) in the 
Tenderloin; (2) in the South of Market area to clean alleys; (3) 
in the area bounded by Mission and Valencia Streets and 18th 
and Division Streets to clean alleys. The cost of these new 
workfare programs is 41$ per worker per hour for workers 
compensation costs, which are to be paid from the 
Department of Social Services' budget. Based on three new 
crews of ten persons each working six days per week, seven 
hours per shift at 410 per hour, the estimated cost to the City 
for these new workfare workers is approximately $517 per 
week. 

2. In April 1992, the DPW also implemented increased 
mechanical flushing on the entire length of Haight Street 
from Market to Stanyan, and on Mission Street to Geneva 
Avenue. The frequency of this mechanical flushing is three 
times per week, Mr. Roumbanis advises. Previously, there 
was no mechanical flushing in these areas. This new 
mechanical flushing program is anticipated to result in no 
added costs to the City, Mr. Roumbanis advises, since work 
crews have been reorganized to accommodate the new 
program. 

3. The DPW has also implemented seven day per week 
mechanical street cleaning using a controlled parking 
program on both sides of Mission Street from 14th Street to 
Army Street, as of May 16, 1992. This new mechanical street 
cleaning program will include holidays, Mr. Roumbanis 
reports. This new mechanical street cleaning program is 
anticipated to result in no added costs to the City, Mr. 
Roumbanis advises, since work crews have been reorganized 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



104 



Memo to Finance Committee 
May 27, 1992 

to accommodate the new program. The penalty for street 
cleaning parking violations is currently $15; to the extent that 
additional vehicles are cited, the new mechanical street 
cleaning program could result in additional revenues to the 
City. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 




7- 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



q n -jc-" CORRECTED 

1 ~ SEE ITEM 12 

CALENDAR -M^ D0CU$£NI2 9£P T ' 

MEETING OF IliU ft W92 

FINANCE COMMITTEE tfU 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BAN FRANCISCO 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ftJIUC Lli*A RY 



^ 



WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ - ITEMS 8-12, 14, 
AND 17 - 24 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 
counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 



a. File 57-91-2.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Chief 
Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in the amount of $10,000, 
for graphic design services to develop promotional materials such as poster, signs, 
flyers, brochures and booklets to promote various recycling program (Maria Wang 
Design Studio and Vinh Chung Graphic Design, contractors). (Chief Administrative 
Officer) 

b. File 146-91-83.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Health/ AIDS Office, in the amount of $25,665, for AIDS/HW 
prevention and education services to Latino Gay/Bisexual Community (Community 
United in Response to AIDS/SUDA (CURAS). (Department of Public Health) 

c. File 101-90-124.2 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Recreation and Park Department, in the amount of $519,200, for construction of the 
McLaren Park Lake Edge Improvements. (Recreation and Park Department) 

d. File 101-88-117.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds. Parking 
Authority, in the amount of $680,000, to supplement funds to purchase the property 
located at 735-755 Vallejo Street, pay the title, escrow fees and pay relocation costs 
of the present tenants. (Parking Authority) 



File 146-92-33 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Epidemiology and Disease 
Control, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control, to apply for a grant of $650,705, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $12,210 based on twenty percent of 
salaries from the Centers for Disease Control, for a research study to evaluate HTV 
counseling models for the residents of the San Francisco. (Department of Public 
Health) 

File 146-92-34 . [Grant - Federal Funds] Resolution authorizing the Department of 
Public Health, Community Public Health Services, Epidemiology and Disease 
Control, Sexually Transmitted Disease Control, to apply for a grant of $420,858, 
which includes indirect costs in the amount of $27,750 based on twenty percent of 
salaries from the Centers for Disease Control, for a research study to provide 
community based sexually transmitted disease services. (Department of Public 
Health) 

ACTION: Consent Calendar recommended. 



REGULAR CALENDAR 

File 94-91-4.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Public 
Utilities Commission, in the amount of $65,000, for Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, Maintenance Building, 
Paint Booth Fans Modification. (Public Utilities Commission) 
(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Continued to Call of the Chair. 

File 100-92-3 . Hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated revenue 
shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 
(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

File 101-90-84.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Fire 
Department - 1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bonds - Series 1991B, in 
the amount $3,756,500, for the construction of new cisterns in the 
Richmond/Sunset/Marina Districts; companion measure to File 101-90-84, Ordinance 
156-91. (Fire Department) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $3,240,871 recommended. Filed. 

File 51-91-4. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

October, November, December 1991 

ACTION: Hearing held. Claim of Nemesio Maquilan restored to $931.46 and 

recommended as amended. Remainder of claims recommended as shown 
on list dated May 6, 1992. Resolution (as prepared by Controller 
amended in Committee to reflect payment for Nemesio Maquilan) 
entitled "Authorizing reimbursement for cost of personal property of 
City and County employees damaged/stolen in the line of duty" prepared 
in and reported out of Committee. Recommended. (Total amount 
$3,118.18.) 



6. File 51-92-1. Transmitting claims of employees, various departments for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
(Various) 

January, February, March 1992 

ACTION: Hearing held. Resolution prepared in and reported out of Committee 
entitled "Authorizing reimbursement for cost of personal property of 
City and County employees damaged/stolen in the line of duty." 
Recommended. (Total amount $47,242.74) 

7. File 64-92-8 . [Lease of Property] Resolution authorizing renewals and extensions of 
certain existing leases of real property required by the Department of Public Health 
and Sheriff. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. 

8. File 101-91-67 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $12,662,437, Public 
Health, Laguna Honda Hospital and San Francisco General Hospital, for various 
purposes, rescinding $55,000 from permanent salaries-miscellaneous, $41,258 from 
professional services, $214,123 from medical services contract. RO #91228 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Amendedment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Appropriating $12,662,437, Public Health, Laguna Honda Hospital 
and San Francisco General Hospital, for various purposes, rescinding 
$55,000 from permanent salaries-miscellaneous, $41,258 from 
professional services, $214,123 from medical services contract; providing 
for ratification of action previously taken." 

9. File 101-91-68 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $184,000, Police 
Department, for medical services. RO #91230 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Appropriating $184,000, Police Department, for medical services; 
providing for ratification of action previously taken." 

10. File 101-91-69 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $5,888,460, 
Retirement System, various departments, for services of other departments - 
Workers Compensation, reducing $27,338 from permanent salaries. RO #91231 
(Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Appropriating $5,842,618, Retirement System, various 
departments, for services of other departments - Workers Compensation, 
reducing $15,551 from permanent salaries; providing for ratification of 
action previously taken." 

11. File 101-91-70 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $509,000, Sheriff 
Department, for materials and supplies; releasing reserve of $101,301 from 
permanent salaries. RO #91232 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Appropriating $458,817, Sheriff's Department, for materials and 
supplies." 



12. File 101-91-71 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $943,616, 
Department Public Health, for permanent salaries-miscellaneous, mandatory fringe 
benefits, professional services, medical services contracts and EDP service - EIPSC 
and Prop J/CSC. RO #91233 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Appropriating $943,616, Department Public Health, for permanent 
salaries-miscellaneous, mandatory fringe benefits, professional services, 
medical services contracts and EDP service - EIPSC and Prop J/CSC; 
placing $280,000 on reserve; providing for ratification of action 
previously taken." (Supervisor Hsieh to replace Controller as sponsor.) 

13. File 101-91-73 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $44,573, Juvenile 
Probation, for professional services. RO #91235 (Controller) 

ACTION: Continued to the Call of the Chair. 

14. File 27-92-2 . [Airport - Lease Modifications] Ordinance approving Modification 
No. 5 lease and use agreement between USAIR, Inc., and City and County of San 
Francisco acting by and through its Airports Commission. (Airports Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

15. File 62-92-2 . [Japanese Tea Garden Gift Shop and Tea House Lease] Ordinance 
approving a ten-year lease with Frederick Lo and Peter Fong, a partnership, for 
establishing and operating a gift shop and tea house concession at the Japanese Tea 
Garden in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California. (Recreation and Park 
Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

16. File 64-92-7 . [Extension of Lease] Resolution authorizing extension of 
month-to-month rental agreement and lease of real property required by the Public 
Utilities Commission at 100 McAllister Street from the University of California, 
Hasting College of Law. (Real Estate Department) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 

17. File 97-92-31 . [Fees Increase - County Clerk] Ordinance amending Administrative 
Code by adding Section 8.33, authorizing the County Clerk to increase fees 
otherwise set by State Law to reflect the actual cost of providing certain records 
and services. (Superior Court) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

18. File 198-92-1 . [Conservatorship Investigation Fees] Resolution increasing 
assessments for investigations in conservatorship cases as provided in Probate Code 
Section 1851.5 from $210 to $384. (Superior Court) 

ACTION: Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. 



19. File 168-92-1 . [Park and Open Space Fund] Resolution concurring with general 
recommendations on the Park and Open Space Fund for Fiscal Year 1992-93, 
reserving approval or disapproval on specific acquisitions. (Recreation and Park 
Commission) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



20. File 245-92-1 . [Employees' Salary-Waiver/Gift Fund] Ordinance creating and 
authorizing expenditure of monies in Employees' Salary-Waiver/Gift Fund providing 
for nondisclosure of identity of donors and findings. (Supervisors Shelley, Migden) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Creating and authorizing expenditure of monies in Employees' 
Salary Gift Fund and providing for nondisclosure of identity of donors and 
findings." 

21. File 121-92-2 . [Tobacco Advertising] Ordinance amending the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by amending Chapter 23 thereof by adding Section 4.20 to 
prohibit advertising of tobacco products on City-owned property; companion to 
measure 121-92-2.1. (Supervisors Alioto, Shelley) 

(Transferred from City Services Committee 5/5/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



22. File 121-92-2.1 . [Cigarette and Tobacco Advertising] Resolution urging Mayor to 
request all City boards, commissions and departments to request individuals and 
entities currently enjoying advertising rights on City property to stop advertising 
cigarettes and tobacco products and to renegotiate leases, permits and agreements 
to ban advertising of tobacco and cigarette products; companion to measure 
121-92-2. (Supervisor Alioto) 
(Transferred from City Services Committee 5/5/92 - Fiscal Impact) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



23. File 170-92-4 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: to provide loans or grants for the seismic strengthening of 
unreinforced masonry buildings for affordable housing and market-rate residential 
and commercial purposes; that the estimated cost of three hundred-fifty million 
dollars ($350,000,000) for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be 
paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness: provided, however, that no more than 
forty-five million dollars ($45,000,000) of said authorization shall be sold in any one 
fiscal year. (Supervisor Hsieh) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Amended of the Whole, aspresented by Supervisor Hsieh, 
adopted. Continued to June 10, 1992, meeting. (Add Supervisor 
Gonzalez as co-sponsor.) New title: "Determining and declaring that the 
public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following 
municipal improvements, to wit: to provide loans or grants for the 
seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry buildings for affordable 
housing and market-rate residential and commercial purposes; that the 
estimated cost of three hundred-fifty million dollars ($350,000,000) for 
said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness: providing, that no more 
than thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) of said authorization shall 
be sold in any one fiscal year; authorizing carry over of authorized 
indebtedness to subsequent fiscal years." 

24. File 246-92-1 . Hearing to consider the creation of a Special Assessment District to 
finance the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 



Public Library, ^Documents (Dzpt. 
JZTBsQ gerry^pth 



3.35' 



ft a 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



I 



/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

AN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 

June 1, 1992 



OOCUWENTC rcpT. 

JUN 3 »W 

Saw Ffl£> J 

PUBLIC U8WA RY 



TO: Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst ({^.co^^e/otM/eAj^ 

SUBJECT: June 3, 1992 Finance Co mmi ttee Meeting 

///// 



Item la - File 57-91-2.3 
Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserved funds for Graphic Design services to 
develop promotional materials for various recycling 
programs (Maria Wang Design Studio and Vinh Chung 
Graphic Design). 



$10,000 

Refuse Impound Account 

The Board of Supervisors previously placed on reserve 
$30,000 for Graphic Design Services pending submission 
by the Solid Waste Management Program of the names of 
the contractors, budgets and MBE/WBE status, (File 57- 
91-2). In September 1991, $20,000 of the $30,000 reserved 
funds was released for the development of posters, signs, 
flyers, brochures and booklets to promote the various 
recycling programs. The remaining $10,000 was kept on 
reserve for future graphic design needs. 

The Solid Waste Management Program has selected the 
design firms of Maria Wang Design Studio, and Vinh 
Chung Graphic Design for their current graphic design 
needs. Maria Wang Design Studio would design and 






Memo to the Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Budget: 



produce direct mail pieces and brochures to highlight and 
publicize consumer and business guides on correct 
recycling practices. Vinh Chung Graphic Design would 
illustrate and produce curbside and school recycling follow- 
up information pieces responding to certain problems 
which have arisen in the program, such as residents 
mixing non-recyclable materials, like plastic, with 
recyclable materials. Maria Wang Design Studio and Vinh 
Chung Graphic Design studio were selected because their 
previous work for the Department effectively represented 
the program's specifications, and because the proposed 
project would be a continuation of work in progress. 

Maria Wang Design Studios 



Rate 


Hours 


Total 


Principal/Designer $50.00 


20hr 


$1,000 


Associate Designer $50.00 


24hrs 


1,200 


Production Artist $40.00 


60hrs 


2,400 


Computer Production $40.00 


60hrs 


2.400 


Subtotal 




$7,000 


Vinh Chung Graphic Design 


Hours 




Rate 


Total 


Design $50.00 


lOhrs 


$500 


Translation $25.00 


20hrs 


500 


Typesetting $50.00 


30hrs 


1,500 


Illustration $55.00 


9hrs 


495 


Subtotal 




$2,995 



Total 



$9,995 



Comments: 1. Both Maria Wang Design Studios and Vinh Chung 

Graphic Design Studios are certified MBE firms. 

2. The budget total was rounded up by $5, from $9,995 to 
$10,000. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



ROARn OF ST TPFRVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item lb -File 146-91-83.2 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount : 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 






Budget: 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 
AIDS Office 

Release of reserved funds for AIDS/HrV Prevention and 
Education to the Latino Gay/Bisexual community 
(Community United in Response to AIDS/SIDA). SIDA, the 
Sindrome Imuno Deficiencia Adquirida, is the Spanish 
acronym for AIDS. 

$25,665 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

In December 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized DPH 
to accept and expend a one year continuation grant of 
$6,099,135 which included indirect costs based on 20 percent 
of personnel costs, (File 146-91-83). These funds were to 
support an array of AIDS prevention programs, such as 
health education and risk reduction, early intervention, and 
partner notification and referral. 

Of the total $6,099,135 grant, $449,069 was reserved pending 
the selection of contractors and information regarding hours, 
rates and the MBE/WBE status of the contractors. Of the 
$449,069 reserved, $25,665 was reserved for Prevention and 
Education for the Latino Gay and Bisexual Community, 
which is the subject of the proposed request. 

The AIDS Office selected the contractor, Community United 
in Response to AIDS/SIDA (CURAS) under a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) process. CURAS was one of two respondents 
and was selected because of their overall viability to perform 
the necessary service. CURAS will provide AIDS/HIV 
prevention and education to Gay and Bisexual Latino men. 



Personnel 


FTEs 




Executive Director 


0.11 


$3,300 


Office Manger 


0.11 


2,420 


Counseling Coordinator 


0.11 


2,860 


Education Coordinator 


0.11 


2,860 


Outreach Coordinator 


0.11 


2,860 


Bookkeeper 


0.11 


2,640 


Subtotal 




$16,940 


Fringe Benefits @ 23% 




3,896 


Total Personnel 


0.66 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 







$20,836 



BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 






Operating Expenditures 






Insurance 


$389 




Property Rental 


542 




Stipend provided for client participation 


250 




Audit Fees 


272 




Telephone 


525 




Total Operating Expenditures 




$1,978 


Materials and Supplies 






Office Supplies 


277 




Postage 


188 




Printing and Reproduction 


272 




Meeting Supplies 


45 




Material Development 


832 




Total Material and Supplies 




1,614 


Training 






Staff Training 




347 


Travel 






Staff Travel -local 


105 




Educational Events 


478 




Conference 


307 





Total Travel 



890 



TOTAL Project Budget 



$25,665 



Comment: 



1. CURAS is a non-profit organization. The contract with 
CURAS would extend for six months from July 1, 1992 
through December 31, 1992. 

2. CURAS will provide the following AIDS/HIV prevention 
and education services to Gay/Bisexual Latino men: 



Peer Education 

Outreach 

Counseling 



45 contacts 
232 contacts 
269 contacts 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item lc - File 101-90-124.2 



Department 

Item: 

Amount : 



Recreation and Park Department 

Release of reserved fund for the construction of the McLaren 
Park Lake Edge Improvements. 

$519,200 



Source of Funds Proceeds from the 1987 Park Improvement Bonds. 

Description: On June 24, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved an 

appropriation of $7,648,988 for park rehabilitation projects 
through the 1987 Park Improvement Bond measure 
(Ordinance #256-91). The Finance Committee placed 
$5,248,650 of this appropriation on reserve pending 
information on the identified contractors and their MBE/WBE 
status. 

The Recreation and Park Department is now requesting the 
release of $519,200 to proceed with the awarding of the 
contract for the McLaren Park Lake Edge Improvements. 
The proposed funds would support the modification of the 
reservoir for recreational use: by reducing the slope of the 
reservoir's sides, landscaping, installing picnic tables 
($380,000), the construction of a wheelchair ramp from the 
parking lot to the lake side ($25,000), installation of chain link 
fencing ($15,000), and sealing the reservoir's bottom ($52,000). 
The request also includes a ten percent construction 
contingency fund ($47,200). 

Bids were received from the following firms: 

Name of Firm Bid Amount MBE/WBE/LBE 



Bauman Landscaping $516,591 

Golden Bay/A. Nakano $481,975 

Inter-Coastal $571,032 

San Luis Construction $472,000 



None 
MBE/LBE 
MBE/LBE 
MBE/LBE 



According to Ms. Deborah Learner of the Recreation and 
Park Department, San Luis Construction was selected based 
on their lowest overall construction bid of $472,000. 



Comments: 1. According to Ms. Learner, currently the reservoir is 

inaccessible to the public. The proposed project would allow 
the reservoir to be used by the public for recreational 
purposes. The slope of the sides of the reservoir would be 
reduced, landscaping and trails would be installed and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

picnic tables would be provided. The project would also make 
the reservoir wheelchair accessible. 

2. The proposed construction will require the reservoir to be 
drained. According to Ms. Learner, because of the need to 
use heavy earthmoving equipment, there is a probability that 
the current bottom seal would be damaged. Resealing the 
reservoir during this project will remove the possibility of 
having to re-drain the reservoir and fix any damage that 
came to light after the reservoir was refilled. Sealing the 
bottom of McLaren Park Lake will also reduce the loss of 
water, slow the accumulation of aquatic plants and reduce 
the amount of work required during the periodic cleaning of 
the reservoir. 

3. Construction would begin once the contract has been 
certified by the Controller's Office and a Notice To Proceed 
(NTP) has been issued. According to Ms. Learner, 
construction must be completed within 120 days of the 
issuance of the NTP. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item Id - File 101-88-117.4 



Department 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic, Parking Authority 

Release of reserve to purchase property at 735 - 755 Vallejo 
Street, and pay the title, escrow fees and relocation costs of 
the present tenants. 

$680,000 

Off-Street Parking Fund 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a 
Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance (File 101-88-117) 
totalling $5,000,000 to enable the Parking Authority to 
purchase property at 735-755 Vallejo Street to be used to 
construct a parking facility to serve the parking needs of the 
North Chinatown and North Beach commercial districts. At 
the same time, the Board of Supervisors placed $4,950,000 of 
the $5,000,000 on reserve pending an agreement of the owner 
to sell the Vallejo Street property to the City or pending the 
outcome of any condemnation proceedings. The remaining 
$50,000 was made available for soil and toxic analysis of the 
property site. In September of 1990, the Finance Committee 
approved the release of $3,950,000 of the $4,950,000, which had 
been placed on reserve, leaving a balance of $1,000,000 on 
reserve (File 101-88-117.2). The $3,950,000 represented the fair 
market value of the property at 735-755 Vallejo Street as 
determined by an independent appraiser retained by the Real 
Estate Department. The Parking Authority requested the 
release of the $3,950,000 in order to deposit that sum with the 
Clerk of the Superior Court. The deposit was required prior 
to the Court granting an Order of Immediate Possession to 
permit the City to take possession of the property. 
Subsequently, the Parking Authority was able to negotiate an 
agreement for the sale of the property in an amount of 
$4,645,000 with the property owner. 

The Parking Authority is now requesting the release of 
$680,000 to supplement funds to purchase the property 
($645,000), pay the title and escrow fees ($15,000) and pay 
relocation costs of the present tenant at 735-750 Vallejo Street 
($20,000). The Parking Authority reports the following 
expenditures for the acquisition of this property: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Purchase Agreement $4,645,000 

Title and Escrow Fees 15,000 

Tenant Relocation Costs 20.000 

Subtotal $4,680,000 
Less: Funding Previously Appropriated 

and Released ($4.000.000) 

Balance Needed $680,000 

Comments: 1. The 735-755 Vallejo Street site currently contains a two- 

level parking facility. According to the Parking Authority, 
the intended parking facility will consist of a seven-level 
structure of approximately 100,000 square feet capable of 
accommodating 300 vehicles and with 10,000 to 13,000 square 
feet of ground floor retail space or community use to be 
operated by the Parking Authority. The existing two-level 
parking structure would be demolished. 

2. The $5 million appropriated for the purchase of this 
property is for acquisition and related costs only. The 
Parking Authority estimates construction costs for the 
project to be approximately $8 million including design costs. 
The project would require approximately three years to 
complete including the design phase. The construction and 
related costs would be financed by the sale of Parking 
Authority lease revenues bonds. 

3. Mr. Kevin Hagerty, Director of the Parking Authority, 
estimates that the $1 million in revenues would be sufficient 
to pay for 80 to 90 percent of the debt service on the bonds. The 
remaining 10 to 20% needed is anticipated to be financed from 
Off-Street Parking Funds. 

4. Mr. Hagerty advises that the Off-Street Parking Fund 
currently has a balance of $1,622,050. However, Mr. Hagerty 
states that the Department has recently submitted three 
separate supplemental appropriation requests to the Mayor's 
Office totalling $1,622,050 which would lease the Off-Street 
Parking Fund with a zero balance. The $1,6222,050 is to be 
expended for: (1) $159,800 for management fees for the 735- 
755 Vallejo Street parking facility, (2) $1,062,250 for 
hazardous waste removal, demolition and other costs 
associated with the construction of the San Francisco 
General Hospital (SFGH) Garage and (3) $400,000 for the 
relocation of MUNI from the SFGH Garage site. These 
pending supplemental will be reviewed in detail by the 
Budget Analyst when they are submitted to the Board of 
Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

5. Mr. Hagerty reports that the balance of the Off-Street 
Parking Fund had been $5,622,050, prior to the transfer of 
$4,000,000 to be used to offset the City's 1991-92 budget deficit. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the amount 
of $680,000. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Itemle - File 146-92-33 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 
Description: 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 

Community Public Health Services, Epidemiology and 

Disease Control, 

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Control Division 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
apply for a grant of $650,705, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $12,210, based on 20 percent of salaries, from 
the Centers for Disease Control for a research study to 
evaluate HP7 counseling models for the residents of San 
Francisco. 

$650,705 

September 30, 1992 to September 29, 1993 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

STD Research - Current Versus Enhanced HIV Counseling 

The Board of Supervisors approved a resolution (File 146-91- 
70) in September, 1991 to authorize the DPH to apply for, 
accept and expend a new grant of $560,641, including indirect 
costs of $11,000, based on 20 percent of personnel costs, from 
the CDC for a research project to evaluate HP/ counseling 
models, and to authorize the expenditure of grant funds to 
establish and finance Civil Service positions for the provision 
of HP7 risk reduction services. This $560,641 represented 
funding for the first phase of a five-year program from the 
CDC. 

The primary goal of the five-year program is to evaluate the 
effectiveness of an enhanced counseling model through 
studies conducted among sexually transmitted disease (STD) 
clinic clients. 

During the first phase of the project, funding was used to 
hire and train staff, negotiate a contract between the DPH 
and the University of California, San Francisco, and pilot test 
one behavioral intervention model with STD Clinic clients. 

The proposed grant, (marking the beginning of the second 
phase of the study, which is expected to last a total of four 
years) will be used to fund additional pilot testing of several 
other behavioral intervention models with STD Clinic clients; 
to make a final determination of the particular behavioral 
intervention model which will he used with patients seen in a 



HOARD OF SUPKKVISOKS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



STD Clinic and to compare their behavior changes with 
patients seen in a STD Clinic who receive a standard single 
session HIV counseling session; and to fund pilot testing of 
the behavioral intervention model that is chosen. San 
Francisco is one of five sites to implement this two-phased 
study, and San Francisco's portion of the study is expected to 
involve one site (the San Francisco City Clinic) and 
approximately 400 STD clients during the grant period of 
September 30, 1992 to September 29, 1993. 

The proposed grant represents the second year of a five year 
project period, and funds throughout the five year period will 
be used to support personnel salaries, operating expenses 
and a sole source contract with the University of California, 
San Francisco (UCSF). If grant funds expire, the DPH will 
have to terminate these UCSF staff positions. 

Only current recipients of STD Prevention and Training 
Center funds (of which the City's STD Control Division is one) 
are eligible to apply for this particular grant. Of the proposed 
grant of $650,705, a total of $500,000 will be spent on 
contractual services with UCSF, which is required by the 
CDC as a condition for receiving the proposed grant. A total 
of two Civil Service personnel positions (1450 Executive 
Secretary and 2802 Epidemiologist I) will be created and 
funded by the proposed grant. If grant funds expire, these 
Civil Service positions will be terminated. 



Required Match; None 

Indirect Costs: $12,210, or 20 percent of salaries 

Comments: 1. Ms. Wendy Wolf of the DPH reports that if these funds are 

not received, the result would be the end of the research 
project. 

2. Ms. Wolf reports that at the time of this writing, the budget 
for the project is not available, but that a budget will be 
provided when the DPH requests the Finance Committee's 
authorization to accept and expend the grant funds. 

3. The DPH advises that the STD Control Division did not 
learn of the availability of grant funds until May 1, 1992. 
Therefore, the DPH is requesting that the proposed resolution 
be expedited, since the DPH's grant application is due on 
June 12, 1992 and if the Finance Committee does not approve 
the proposed resolution on June 3, 1992, the Board of 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Supervisors will not be able to approve the grant application 
before the application deadline. 

The DPH indicates that the DPH intends to submit a proposed 
resolution to the Board of Supervisors to accept and expend 
the proposed grant at a later date, at which time, as 
previously noted, a detailed budget will be presented. 

4. The Grant Application Information Form, as prepared by 
the DPH, is attached. 

5. The DPH has completed a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

6. As previously noted, the prior year's grant was funded in 
the amount of $560,641. This proposed request of $650,705 
represents an increase of $90,064, or approximately a 16.1 
percent increase. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUl'KKVlSi >KS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



i i e No . 



GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM 



10: .'he Board of Supervisors 

Attn: Clerk of the Board Date s/18/92 



Request for authorization to submit a grant application as described below: 

5. Department: Public Health, CPHS, Epidemiology and Disease Control, STD Con trol 

2. Contact 

Person: Wendy wolf /86A-8100 

3. Project 

Title: STD Research - Current Versus Enhanced HIV Counseling 

*. Grant 

Source: Centers for Disease Control 

5. Proposed vSs^' / Continuation) Grant Project' Summary: 

The purpose of this grant is to design, develop, pilot and implement enhanced 
HIV counseling models with patients seen in an STD Clinic and compare their 
behavior change with patients seen in the STD Clinic who receive a standard 
single session HIV counseling session. 

Eligible applicants are the current recipients of STD Prevention and Training 
Center Funds. 

This is the second year of a five year project period, and funds will be used 
to support personnel salaries, operating expenses and a contract with the 
University of California, San Francisco. 

Activities incuded in this project year will include development and pilot 
testing of a number of behavioral interventions to enhance current HIV post-test 
counseling; administration of an agreed up.on behvioral interventions, and meeting 
with the funder at various stages of the project to discuss problems and progree. 

6. Amount of Grant Funding Applied 

For : $650,705.00 



. 



r . Maximum Funding Amount Available a ?r- Individual 
irant: $700,000-00^ : 



•3. ^eqtri'red Matching 
Funds: None 



9. Number of Positions Created and 
Funned: 2 



; 0. Amount to oe Spent on Contract'. 
Services: $500,000.00 



ii. Wiil Contractual Services 3e 3 ui Sur ^o 

Sid 7 No. The funder has requi red that we contract with UCSF. 
3613] 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item If - File 146-92-34 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 

Description 



Department of Public Health (DPH), 

Community Public Health Services, Epidemiology and 

Disease Control, 

Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Control Division 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to 
apply for a grant of $420,858, which includes indirect costs in 
the amount of $27,750, based on 20 percent of salaries, from 
the Centers for Disease Control for a research study to 
provide community based sexually transmitted disease 
services. 

$420,858 

September 28, 1992 to September 27, 1993 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 

Community-Based Sexually Transmitted Disease Services 
Research Project 

The Board of Supervisors previously approved a resolution 
(File 146-91-47) which authorized the Department of Public 
Health to apply for, accept and expend a continuation of a 
Federal grant of $382,598, including indirect costs of $24,682 
based on 20 percent of salaries. This continuation of a grant 
was used to fund alternative, community-based sexually 
transmitted disease services and the establishment and 
financing of Civil Service positions to provide such services. 
The DPH actually received a grant amount of $361,209 to 
provide these services, which constituted the second year of a 
three-year grant from the CDC. 

A CDC grant of $185,230 was provided in the first year of the 
project and was used for hiring staff, negotiating contracts 
and beginning to provide STD clinical services and outreach 
to San Francisco communities with very high rates of STDs. 
The second year grant of $361,209 focused primarily on 
providing community-based STD clinical services and 
outreach as well as evaluating the use of alternative 
providers as compared to the San Francisco City Clinic and 
San Francisco General Hospital's Emergency Room. The 
purpose of the proposed grant of $420,858 is to continue bo 
provide convenient, accessible and culturally sensitive 
sexually transmitted disease services in a community-based 
setting. 



ROAUI) OF SUPERVISORS 
lilUX JET ANALYST 
14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



The proposed grant represents the third and final year of the 
three-year grant from the CDC, and funds will be used to 
support personnel salaries, operating expenses and contracts 
with two community-based agencies to fund the salaries of 
community health outreach workers. 

Of the proposed grant of $420,858, approximately $200,000 will 
be spent on contractual services. As of the writing of this 
report, the DPH intends to continue to contract with Glide 
Memorial United Methodist Church and the Bayview 
Hunters Point Foundation for three Community Health 
Outreach Workers and two part-time data entry workers for 
the final year of the project. The DPH advises that services 
were bid out two years ago through a competitive bid process. 
In addition, a total of three City personnel positions will be 
created and funded by the proposed grant (a Physician's 
Assistant and an Assistant Health Educator to coordinate 
and supervise the Community Health Outreach Workers and 
a Disease Control Investigator). 



Required Match: None 

Indirect Costs: $27,750, or 20 percent of salaries 



Comments: 1. Ms. Wendy Wolf of the DPH reports at the time of this 

writing, no fiscal year 1992-93 budget for the project is 
available, but that it will be provided when the DPH requests 
the Finance Committee's authorization to accept and expend 
the grant funds. 

2. Ms. Wolf reports that the proposed funds are needed to 
continue to fund the above-mentioned positions and the two 
community-based STD clinics located at Glide Memorial 
United Methodist Church and at the Southeast Health 
Center. At the time of this writing, the DPH has been 
exploring, but has not determined what other funding 
sources may be available to continue this demonstration 
project after CDC discontinues funding after fiscal year 1992- 
93. 

3. The DPH advises that the STD Control Division did not 
learn of the availability of these grant funds until May 1, 1992. 
Therefore, the DPH is requesting that the proposed resolution 
be expedited, since the DPH's grant application is due on 
June 12, 1992 and if the Finance Committee does not approve 
the proposed resolution on June 3, 1992, the Board of 
Supervisors will not be able to approve the grant application 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



before the application deadline. As noted above, the DPH 
indicates that the DPH intends to submit a proposed 
resolution to the Board of Supervisors to accept and expend 
the proposed grant at a later date, at which time a detailed 
budget will be provided. 

4. Attached is the Grant Application Information Form, as 
prepared by the DPH. 

5. The DPH has completed a Disability Access Checklist, 
which is in the file. 

6. As previously noted, the prior year's grant was funded in 
the amount of $361,209. This proposed request of $420,858 
represents an increase of $59,649, or approximately a 16.5 
percent increase. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



1 A 



r 1 i e No . 



GRANT APPLICATION INFORMATION FORM 



To: The Board of Supervisors 

Attn: Clerk, of the Board Date 5/18/92 



Request for authorization to submit a grant application as described below: 

1. Department: Public Health, CPHS, Epidemiology and Disease Control, STD Cont rol 

2. Contact 

Person: Wendy Wolf /864-8100 

3. Project 

Title: Community-Based Sexually Transmitted Disease Services Res earch Project 

&. Grant 

Source : Centers for Disease Control 

5. Proposed (New / Continuation) Grant Project* Summary: 

The purpose of the grant is to provide convenient, accessible and culturally 
sensitive sexually transmitted disease services in a community-based setting. 

This is the third year of a three year project, and funds will be used to 
support personnel salaries, operating expenses and contracts with two 
community-based agencies to fund community health outreach workers. 

Activities included in the last year of the Project will include community 
outreach, community-based provision of STD services, and meetings with the 
f under to report on problems and progress. 



6. Amount of Grant Funding Applied 

For : $420,858 • 

7. Maximum Funding Amount Available Per Inaividua' 
Grant: $450,000 • 

3. Re^tn'red Matching 

Funds : None 

9. Number of Positions Created and 

Funded: 3 



10. Amount to oe Spent on Contractual 
Services: $200,000 



11. Will contractual Services 3e Put Our To 

Sid? Services were bid out 2 years ago, and we will be contracting with the same 

agencies for the final year of the project. 
3619J 

•92 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 2 - File 94-91-4.3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
27, 1992. 

Department Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Item: Request for release of a budgetary reserve of 1991-92 Federal 

Transit Administration Section 9 Capital Funds, including 
$51,598 in Federal funds and $13,402 in local matching funds 
for a total of $65,000 for Municipal Railway Contract No. MR- 
1039-R, Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, 
Maintenance Building, Paint Booth Fans Modification. 

Comment: The Department has requested that the proposed item be 

continued to the call of the Chair. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed release of reserve to the call of the 
Chair. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 3 - File 100-92-3 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of May 
27, 1992. 

This item is a hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. 

On March 31, 1992, the Controller, the Mayor's Finance Director and the 
Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst issued a Joint Report on the anticipated 
revenue shortfall for Fiscal Year 1992-93. A revenue shortfall of between $139.2 
and $148.2 million for the 1992-93 Fiscal Year is projected in order to fund the level 
of services assumed in the original 1991-92 budget. This projected revenue 
shortfall results largely from a combination of (a) increased spending levels in 
Fiscal Year 1992-93 of $170.8 million, including $108.0 million in salary and fringe 
benefit increases and (b) reduced General Fund revenues. 

This projection compares to the prior revenue shortfall projection of $91.7 
million in a joint report dated November 27, 1991. 

The $139.2 to $148.2 million projected revenue shortfall amount must be 
eliminated through either (a) a reduction in expenditures (b) increased revenue 
sources, or (c) a combination of both. 

According to Mr. Ted Lakey of the City Attorney's Office, the California 
State Constitution requires that the City and County of San Francisco adopt a 
balanced budget each year. The City's Charter, Section 6.203 states that not later 
than June first of each year, the Mayor shall transmit to the Board of Supervisors 
the consolidated budget estimates for all departments and the proposed budget for 
the City and County for the ensuing fiscal year, including a detailed estimate of 
all revenues for each department and an estimate of the amount required to meet 
bond interest, redemption and other fixed charges of the City and County and the 
applicable revenues. At the same time, the Mayor is also required to submit to the 
Board of Supervisors a draft of the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the 
ensuing fiscal year, which is prepared by the Controller. 

According to Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City Attorney's Office, the Mayor is 
required to submit a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Delventhal 
acknowledges however that the Mayor's proposed budget may include anticipated 
revenues that have yet to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. For example, 
during the fiscal year 1991-92 budget, the Mayor submitted a proposed budget that 
included increases in the City's parking tax from 20 to 25 percent and increases in 
the MUNI Fast Pass, the projected revenues from which would balance the 
proposed expenditures. The Board of Supervisors had not yet adopted these 
revenue measures as of June, 1991 when the Mayor submitted his recommended 
budget to the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

In preparation for an anticipated shortfall in the 1992-93 budget, Ms. Teresa 
Serata of the Mayor's Office reports that initially the Mayor's Office requested that 
each department submit a reduced 10 percent proposed budget for fiscal year 1992- 
93. However, given the $139.2 to $148.2 million shortfall projected, the Mayor's 
Office requested that each department and commission review and resubmit their 
proposed 1992-93 budgets to the Mayor's Office, to include an additional 8 percent 
reduction. Because many of the departments under the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO) are so small, the Mayor's Office requested an additional collective 8 
percent reduction from all of the CAO's departments, rather than individually. In 
addition, specific reductions of $20 million each from the Municipal Railway 
(MUNI) and the Health Department were requested in lieu of an additional 8 
percent reduction. 

According to Ms. Serata, in addition to expenditure reductions, 
departments were encouraged by the Mayor's Office to include additional 
potential revenues that could be used to offset the additional 8 percent reduction. 

On June 1, 1992, the Mayor presented the fiscal year 1992-93 budget to the 
Board of Supervisors. The Budget Analyst is currently reviewing all of the 
expenditures and revenues contained in the Mayor's 1992-93 budget. As part of 
this budget review, the Budget Analyst will provide recommendations for 
reductions or changes to the fiscal year 1992-93 budget. In addition, the Budget 
Analyst will describe any service and program reductions, identify any fee or tax 
increases and the corresponding projected revenues to be generated, specifying 
those fees or taxes that require the Board of Supervisors approval and highlight 
any expenditures that may be underfunded. The Finance Committee's budget 
hearings are scheduled for June 16 through June 25, 1992. The Interim 
Appropriation Ordinance and the Interim Salary Ordinance are scheduled to be 
heard by the Finance Committee on June 10, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 4 - File 101-90-84.3 



Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description 



Fire Department 

Department of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering 

Release of reserved funds for the construction of new cisterns 
in the RichmondVSunset/Marina Districts. 

$3,756,500 

1986 Fire Protection System Improvement Bonds 

In November, 1986, City voters approved the issuance of Fire 
Prevention System Improvement Bonds (Proposition A). 
Funds from the bond sale in the amount of $46,200,000 are to 
be used for the improvement of the City's fire protection 
system. 

In April, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the Fire 
Department's $15,200,000 supplemental appropriation from 
the 1986 bond funds for capital improvement projects (File 
101-90-84) and placed on reserve $13,506,943 for the purchase, 
installation and improvements to the City's high pressure 
water system, including improvements to pump stations, 
tanks and reservoirs, pending determination of contract 
amounts and MBE/WBE status. Of the $13,506,943 in reserve, 
$5,170,000 was earmarked for cistern installations. 

The Fire Department is now requesting a release of $3,240,871 
(rather than the original amount of $3,756,500 requested) for 
the construction of new cisterns in the Richmond, Sunset 
and Marina districts of the City. The DPWs estimated budget 
for the cistern construction project is as follows: 



Construction Contract 


$2,823,470 


Construction Contingency (10%) 


282,000 


Archaeological Monitoring During 




Construction 


80,811 


Building Damage Monitoring During 




Construction 


54.590 


Project Total 


$3,240,871 



BPAKPOFSnPKKVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Comments: 1. Mr. Bob Jew of the DPW reports that the amount requested 

to be released for this Richmond, Sunset and Marina District 
cistern construction project should be $3,240,871 rather than 
$3,756,500 as reflected in the original request for release of 
these funds. Mr. Jew advises that the construction contract 
was awarded to A. Ruiz Construction Co. & Associates and 
Ranger Pipelines, Inc. on May 27, 1992. The $3,240,871 is 
based on the actual construction contract bid, in addition to 
the other expenses noted above. Therefore, the proposed 
release of reserve amount should be reduced to $3,240,871. 

2. Ms. Linda Chin of the Human Rights Commission advises 
that A. Ruiz Construction Co. & Associates and Ranger 
Pipelines, Inc. constitute a joint venture. A. Ruiz 
Construction Co. is a City-certified MBE/LBE firm and 
Ranger Pipelines is neither a MBE nor WBE firm. Ms. Chin 
advises that A. Ruiz Construction Co. will perform 41 percent 
or $1,167,919 of the $2,823,470 construction contract, Ranger 
Pipelines will perform 38 percent or $1,068,551 of the 
construction contract, and that 21 percent or $587,000 of the 
construction contract will be performed by subcontractors. 

3. Mr. Jew estimates that the cistern construction contract 
will be completed by August, 1993 and reports that the Fire 
Department and the DPW will be requesting another release 
of funds in four to five months for another cistern 
construction project in the Marina, Sunset and Richmond 
districts. 

Recommendation: Reduce the proposed release of reserve of $3,756,500 by 
$515,629 to $3,240,871. Continue to reserve the $515,629. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item 5 - File 51-91-4 

This item transmits the claims of various City employees for 
reimbursement for personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. 
The attached report lists the Controller's recommended reimbursements of 13 
warrants to 13 City employees, at a total cost of $2,186.72. 

Section 10.25.1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code Authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
cost of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The 
Controller recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claims submitted, 
and after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the Controller that the 
damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amounts requested for payment 
are fair and reasonable. 

Attached is a listing of the claims and the Controller's comments. These 
claims are for the period October through December 1991. 

Comment 

The Controller's Office has certified that funds are available for these employee 
reimbursements. The source of funds would be Claims and Judgments, General 
Fund. 

Recommendation 

Prepare in and report out of Committee a resolution approving the requested 
reimbursements totaling $2,186.72. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



File Uo. 51-91-4 



Date: MAY 6, 1992 



REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CITY EMPLOYEES 



Department 
Claimant 



Public Works 



Amount Amount 

Claimed Recommended 



Controllers 
Comments 



Richard Skaff 



392.05 -0- 



Battery charger 
personal equipment 



Gina Meritt 



80.00 -0- 



Stolen 
property . 



person; 



Robert Mason 



35.00 35.00 



Wearing appan 
damaged through 
fault of employee • 
jobsite. 



David Moore 



62.35 62.35 



Wearing appan 
damaged through 
fault of employee 
jobsite . 



District Attorney 
Joan Bennett 



150.00 150.00 



Wearing appar< 
damaged through 
fault of employee 
jobsite . 



Philip David Wool 



43.50 43^50 



Wearing appar< 
damaged through i 
fault of employee < 
jobsite . 



Social Services 



Jill Keeler 



69.87 49.87 



Theft occurred : 
the course of norm; 
work duties . 



Ronald Brown 



590.00 170.00 



24 



Theft occurred : 
the course of woi 
duties bu 

possibility c 

contributor 
negligence 



5.F. General Hospital 
2dgar Pierluissi 



250.00 250.00 ' 



R e i m b u r 
eyeglasses . 



Equipment required 
for job stolen from 
worksite . 



far Memorial 



James Hamilton 



375.00 375.00 , 



Wearing apparel 

required for job 
stolen from jobsite. 



John Bott 



1083.00 575.00 






Wearing apparel 

required for job 
stolen from jobsite. 
No reimbursement for 
personal items not 
required for job. 



Juvenile Court 



Jacob Davis 



90.00 90.00 



Damaged apparel 

damaged in 

performance of job 
duties . 



Jose Alardo 



151.00 151.00- 






iounty Clerk 



Damaged glasses 

sustained in 

performance of job 
duties . 



Pristine Bautista 



588.77 -0- 



Personal items 

stolen . Not 

required for work. 



"hief Administrative Officer 



Bradford T. Engle 



165.00 165.00- 



Damaged wearing 

apparel caused by 
City equipment on 
jobsite . 




70.00 70.00 / 

25 



.jed wearing 

apparel caused by 



Purchasing 
Nemesio Maquilan 



931.46 



-0- 



City equipment 
jobsite . 



MOU requir 

inventory of to< 
be on file bef< 
loss c 1 a i 

Inventory dat 

after loss. Deny 



EMPLCLM.RE 



26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item 6 -File 51-92-1 

This item transmits the claims of various City employees for reimbursement for 
personal property damaged and/or stolen in the line of duty. The attached report 
lists the Controller's recommended reimbursements of 18 warrants, at a total cost 
of$47,242.74. 

Section 10.25.1 of the San Francisco Administrative Code Authorizes the 
Controller to provide reimbursement to City employees to recover part or all of the 
cost of replacing or repairing equipment or property which has been damaged or 
destroyed in the line of duty without the fault of the City employees. The 
Controller recommends reimbursement after reviewing the claim submitted, and 
after reviewing the Department Head's certification to the Controller that the 
damage occurred in the line of duty and that the amounts requested for payment 
are fair and reasonable. 

Attached is a listing of the claims and the Controller's comments. These claims 
are for the three month period, January through March, 1992. 

Comments 

1. The Controller's Office has certified that funds are available for these employee 
reimbursements. The source of funds would be Claims and Judgments, General 
Fund. 

2. According to Mr. John Madden of the Controller's Office, the claims by Mr. 
Frank Barnes, Mr. Arthur Hickey, Mr. Richard A. Grove, and Mr. Ronald L. 
Micely, totaling $47,507.12 are for tools stolen from a Water Department shop. 
Under the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and 
the Automotive Machinists Union, Local 1305, the City is required to indemnify an 
employee for tools that are damaged by fire or stolen while the tools are properly 
on City property or being used by the employee in the course of City business. 



Recommendation 

Prepare in and report out of Committee a resolution approving the requested 
reimbursement of $47,242.74 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 



File No. 51-92-1 



Date: MAY 11, 1992 



REIMBURSEMENT FOR DAMAGED OR STOLEN PERSONAL PROPERTY OF CITY EMPLOYEES 



Department 
Claimant 

Public Works 

David E. Moore 

William Rainey 

Water Department 

Frank Barnes (2 claims) 

Arthur Hickey (2 claims) 

Richard A. Grove (2 claims) 

Ronald L. Micely (2 claims) 

Laqnna Honda Hospital 
Al Horton 

S.F. General Hospital 
Anna Pollack 



Amount 
Claimed 



Amount 
Recommended 



62.35 62.35 - 



125.00 -0- 



5182.79 5182.79 
13,828.00 13,828.00 



7552.96 7552.96 
8996.37 8996.37 



1610.46 1610.46 
3494.96 3494.96 



2738.83 2738.83 
2102.75 2102.75 



43.00 



442.00 



43.00 



442.00 



Controllers 
Comments 



Damaged weari 
apparel caused 
City equipment 
jobsite. 

Personal item stol 
from City car. 



MOU requires 
replacement by Cit 

MOU requires 
replacement by Cit 

MOU requires 
replacement by Cit 

MOU requires 
replacement by Cit 



Damage occurred 
jobsite . 



Stole 
Oto/opthal mo s c op 
job related item 
occurred at jobsit 



28 



>tuart Zangwill 



140.00 



140.00 



Page 2 of 3 

Job related items 
stolen from jobsite. 



ublic Health Central Office 



Jetty Gee 



42.60 



Safety regulations 
not followed. Deny. 



lorlee M. Chavez 



152.00 



-0- 



Personal items . No 
evidence of City 
responsibility. 



irian Louie 



30.00 



Personal item 

damaged. No evidence 
of City 

responsibility. 



;arla Hightower 



45.00 



-0- 



Personal items. No 
evidence of City 
responsibility . 



loriane C. Miller 



165.00 



165.00 



Job related items 
stolen from jobsite. 



jena Vinson 



60.00 



-0- 



Personal items. No 
evidence of City 
responsibility . 



larcella Holzman 



209.55 



Mileage 
reimbursement covers 
operating costs. 



luvenile Court 
racob Davis 



50.00 50.00 



Damaged wearing 

apparel caused by 
City equipment at 
jobsite. 



lichael Thurman 



39.00 39.00 



Damaged personal 

property sustained 
in course of job 
duties . 



tunicipal Railway 
lark Sangervasi 



601.84 601.84 



MOU requires City 
reimburse lost 

tools . 



29 



Police 



Mercedes N. Lacanglacang 



Recreation & Park 



Rick Allan Chin 



Adaline Rich Rogers 



Arlene El— Yousef 



Laurent Garnett 



S9.00 89.00 



109.29 



84.13 



400.00 



103.43 



-0- 



-0- 



-0- 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 3 



Wearing appai 

damaged at works:e 
through no fault f 
employee . 



Department head dc 
not recomme 

payment . 



103.43 



Department head dc I 
not recommec 

payment . 

Department head dc s 
not recommec 

payment . 

Wearing apparl 

stolen from jobsit 



Assessor 



Kan Shen 



500.00 



-0- 



Auto damage v t 
shown to be Ci y 
responsibility . 



30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item 7 - File 64-92-8 
Departments: 



Item: 



(1) Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Real Estate 

Department of Public Health (DPH),Community Mental 

Health Services (CMHS) 
Sheriff 

Resolution authorizing the extension of 18 leases Qeases 
1 through 18) and the execution of two lease renewals 
(leases 19 and 20) of real property required by the 
Department of Public Health and the Sheriff. 

Each of the proposed leases is summarized below: 

759 South Van Ness Avenue (entire second floor) 
Childrens' Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 
AIM Two 

6,445 sq. ft. @ $0.83/sq. ft/mo. = $5,349.19 rent/month 
$64,190 



6% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor. Janitorial Only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 - June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 5 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 



(2) Location: 



615 Grant Avenue (entire second floor) 



Purpose of Lease: Chinatown Child Development Center Outpatient 
Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lessor: 

No.ofSq.Ftand 
Cost/Month: 



Patrick Leung and Esther Leung 

3,815 sq. ft. @ $1.07/sq. ft./mo. = $4,094.72 rent/month 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Annual Cost: 



$49,137 



% Increase over 
1991-92: 5.4% 

Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 3 one-year options remain. 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(3) Location: 615 Grant Avenue (entire fifth floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Chinatown Child Development Center (CMHS) 



Lessor. 



No. of Sq. Ft and 
CostfMonth: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Sinclair Louie, May C. Louie and 718 California Street 
Corp. 



4,100 sq. ft. @ $1.35/sq. ft./mo. = $5,528 rent/month 
$66,336 

6% 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: No 



Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal- 1 one-year option remains. 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



(4) Location 

Purpose of Lease: 
Lessor. 



************ 

298 Monterey Boulevard 

Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 

John W. Powell and Sylvia C. Powell 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



No. of Sq. Ft and 
CostfMonth: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



4,025 sq. ft. @ $0.65/sq. ft/mo. = $2,610.89 rent/month 
$31,331 

5% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 1 one-year option remains 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(5) Location: 2335 - 39 Ocean Avenue 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Center (CMHS) 



Lessor. 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost^Vlonth: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Beverly M. Pelton 

3,954 sq. ft. @ $0.73/sq. ft/mo. = $2,872.42 rent/month 
$34,469 

None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal 1 one-year option remains 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



************ 



(6) Location: 



2001 Van Ness Avenue (entire third floor) and 1700 
Jackson Street 



Purpose of Lease: Special Problems Clinic (CMHS) 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Lessor Asadoor O. Astorian and Josyane L. Astorian 

No, of Sq. Ft and 

Cost/Month; 9,718 sq. ft. @ $2.41/sq. ftVmo. = $23,434.78 rent/month 

Annual Cost: $281,217 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 5% 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: No 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal 1 one-year option remains 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and -45% General Fund 

************ 

(7) Location: 444 - 6th Street 

Purpose of Lease: Community Substance Abuse Services (CMHS) and 
Prisoner Services Program (Sheriffs Department) 

Lessor: Bramval Company 

No. of Sq. Ft and 

Cost/Month: 5,156 sq. ft. @ $0.81/sq. ft7mo. = $4,185 rent/month 

Annual Cost: DPH $25,110 

Sheriff 25.110 

Total $50,220 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 4% 

Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal 1 one-year option period remains 

Source of Funds: 100% General Fund for DPH's share and 100% General 
Fund for Sheriff Department's share. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



8) 



Comment- 



Half of the premises at 444-6th Street are leased by the 
Public Health Department's Community Substance 
Abuse Services and the other half by the Sheriffs 
Department, Prisoner Services Program. 



************ 



Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



3901 and 3905 Mission Street. 200 and 226 College Avenue 
Geriatric Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 
Giovacchino Diodati and Armando Diodati 

2,570 sq.ft. @ $1.13/sq. ftJmo. = $2,900.18 rent/month 
$34,802 

None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor. Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 2 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(9) Location: 3911 Mission Street 

Purpose of Lease: Geriatric Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 
Lessor. Giovacchino Diodati and Armando Diodati 



No. of Sq. Ft and 
CosfMontir. 



Annual Cost: 



1,500 sq. ft. @ $0.93/sq. ft./mo. = $1,400.84 base 
rent/month 

Base Rent $1,400.84 

Water Reimbursement 20.01 

Janitorial Allowance 192.72 

Total Rent $1,613.57 

$19,363 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 4.9% 

Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial and water 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 2 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(10) Location- 1182 Market Street (Room 204) 

Purpose of Lease: Administrative Offices for DPH's Eldercare Program 

Lessor. Shorenstein Company 

No. of Sq. Ft and 

Cost/Month: 2,019 sq. ft. @ $0.96/sq. ftVrno. = $1,930 rent/month 

Annual Cost: $23,160 

% Increase over 
1991-92: None 

Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor: Yes 

Term of Lease: Month- to-Month beginning July 1, 1992 

Right of Renewal: This space has only been offered on a month-to-month 
lease basis commencing July 1, 1992, for a period not to 
exceed one year, because the lessor wishes to maximize 
its options. However, there is no rental increase. 

Source of Funds: 100% General Fund 

************ 

(11) Location 1182 Market Street (Suite 320) 

Purpose of Lease: Senior Information Referral and Health Promotions 
Program (Commission on Aging) 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 






Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Comment: 



(12) Location; 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



The Real Estate Department reports that the above noted 
lease was included in the proposed legislation 
erroneously. 

************ 

755 - 61 South Van N ess Avenue 
Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 
AIM Two 

7,101 sq. ft. @ $0.76/sq. ftAno. = $5,411 rent/month 
$64,932 

5% 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor. No 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal 3 one-year option periods remain. 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(13) Location: 10 - 29th Street 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 
Lessor: 



No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month; 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



George and Lois Maisels and Lawrence and Frances 
Maisels 



1,750 sq. ft. @ $0.78/sq. ft./mo. = $1,367.57 rent/month 
$16,411 

5.3% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor Janitorial only 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGEr ANALYST 

37 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Term of Lease: 



Month-to-month commencing July 1, 1992. 



Right of Renewal DPH has opted for a month-to-month lease because the 
Department is seeking a new site in order to consolidate 
clinic services. 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(14) Location: 615 Grant Avenue (portion of 3rd floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lessor. 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 



Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Patrick and Esther Leung 

3,815 sq. ft. @ $1.09/sq. ft./mo. = $4,177.23 base 
rent/month 

$50,127 
4.3% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor Janitorial only 



Term of Lease: 



Month-to-month commencing July 1, 1992 



Right of Renewal: DPH has opted for a month-to-month lease because the 
Department is seeking a new site in order to consolidate 
clinic services. 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 



(15) Location: 



615 Grant Avenue (entire 4th floor) 



Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lessor 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 



Patrick and Esther Leung 

4,165 sq. ft. @ $0.98/sq. ft./mo. = $4,067.12 rent/month 
$48,805 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



% Increase over 
1991-92: 



5% 



Utilities and Janitor 
Provided by Lessor. No 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 3 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



(16) Location: 



************ 



471 Jessie Street (ground floor) 



Purpose of Lease: Substitute Payee Program (CMHS and Public 
Administrator/Guardian, DPH will continue to pay the 
rent) 



Lessor. 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 



Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Susan McAllister Moxon 



1,500 sq. ft. @ $1.00/sq. fUmo. = $1,500 base rent/month 
Base Rent $1,500.00 

Janitorial Allowance 222.60 
Total Rent $1,722.60 



$20,671 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor. Janitorial only. 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 3 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



(17) Location: 

Purpose of lease: 
Lessor 



************ 

471 Jessie Street (second and third floors) 
Outpatient Mental Health Clinic(CMHS) 

Susan McAllister Moxon 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



No. of Sq. Ft and 
CosfcMonth: 



Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



2,824 sq. ft. @ $0.85/sq. fWmo. = $2,400 base rent/month 
Base Rent $2,400.00 
Janitorial 480.90 
Total $2,880.90 

$34,571 



None 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor. Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 3 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

*********** 

(18) Location: 4190 - Mission Street (ground floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lessor: 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
CostfMonth; 

Annual Cost: 

% Increase over 
1991-92: 



Servidores De Jesus, Inc. 

3,600 sq. ft. @ $0.86/sq. ft./mo. = $3,102.80 rent/month 
$37,234 

6% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 3 one-year option periods remain 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



************ 



(19) Location: 111 Potrero Avenue (portion of ground floor) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lessor. 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Decrease over 
1991-92: 



111 Potrero Partnership 

6,000 sq. ft. @ $0.87/sq. hJmo. = $5,200 rent/month 
$62,400 

1% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor: Janitorial only 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993 

Right of Renewal: 4 one-year option periods 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 

************ 

(20) Location: 1548 Stockton Street (entire building) 

Purpose of Lease: Outpatient Mental Health Clinic (CMHS) 



Lesson 

No. of Sq. Ft and 
Cost/Month: 

Annual Cost: 

% Decrease over 
1991-92: 



Eugene Y.C. and Anita Tak Hing Choi 

4,503 sq. ft. @ $1.50/sq. ftVmo. = $6,734 rent/month 
$80,808 

14% 



Utilities and Janitor 

Provided by Lessor Janitorial only 



Term of Lease: 



Month-to-month basis commencing July 1, 1992 



Right of Renewal: DPH has opted for a month-to-month lease because the 
Department is seeking a new site in order to consolidate 
clinic services. 

BOARD OF SI JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

hi 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Source of Funds: 55% State funds and 45% General Fund 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



1. As noted above, the Real Estate Department reports 
that the lease extension for Suite 320 at 1182 Market 
Street (Lease No. 11) was erroneously included in the 
proposed legislation. Therefore the legislation should be 
amended to delete reference to this lease. 

2. Mr. Phil Aissen of the Real Estate Department reports 
that a site has been located which could potentially 
accommodate the planned consolidation of the clinic 
services currently being provided at 10-29th Street, 615 
Grant Avenue (3rd Floor) and 1548 Stockton Street (Lease 
Nos. 13, 14 and 20). Mr. Aisssen advises that if a lease 
agreement is negotiated on this proposed site, the clinic 
services could be relocated by March of 1993. However, 
the Real Estate Department is recommending approval 
of the month-to-month Lease Nos. 13, 14, and 20 at this 
time. 

3. The funding availability for these proposed leases is 
subject to approval in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 budget. 

4. The Real Estate Department reports that the proposed 
rents reflect fair market value. Leases 19 and 20 are 
decreasing to adjust the monthly rent to the current fair 
market value. 

Amend the proposed resolution to delete reference to the 
lease extension for Suite 320 at 1182 Market Street (Lease 
No. 11) and approve the resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

42 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 8 - File 101-91-67 



Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description 



Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Laguna Honda Hospital 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$12,662,437 for various purposes, rescinding $55,000 from 
Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous, $41,258 from 
professional services, $214,123 from Medical Services 
Contract, for fiscal year 1991-92 . 

$12,662,437 

MediCare Net Revenue $ 7,900,000 

Medi-Cal Net Revenue 2,473,042 

Other Patient Net Revenue 1,607,000 

Various Expenditure 

Reappropriations (Includes 

reappropriation of Prop. 99 funds 

not included in the title of the 

proposed ordinance) 682.395 

Total $12,662,437 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would appropriate 
additional unanticipated patient revenues and reappropriate 
various previously appropriated DPH expenditures. These 
additional unanticipated patient revenues resulted from 
increased bed usage and patient census. The DPH reports 
that these additional revenues are needed for estimated year 
end operating expenditures and other revenue shortfalls, 
including shortfalls in workers compensation, fringe 
benefits, facilities maintenance at SFGH to prepare for an 
accreditation survey, and funds to be allocated to the General 
Fund representing SFGH's contribution to the current year 
deficit reduction plan. Specifically, the funds would be used 
as follows: 






San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 


$11,497,715 


Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous 


$ 657,400 


Permanent Salaries - Craft 


17,000 


Permanent Salaries - Nurses 


404,500 


Overtime Pay 


15,200 


Holiday Pay 


19,300 


Temporary Salaries 


85,300 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


251,300 


Other Fringe Benefits - Nurses 


260,000 


Contractual Services 


1,400,000 


Materials & Supplies 


1,999,600 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 





BUDGET ANALYST 

43 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

City Attorney $ 140,000 

Workers Compensation 421,000 
Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 

for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 349,798 

Facilities Maintenance & Capital Projects 528,000 

Transfer to General Fund 4.949.317 

Total SFGH $11,497,715 

Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) $ 483,042 

Workers Compensation 483.042 

Total LHH $ 483,042 

DPH - Central Office $ 681,680 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 40,000 
Community Public Health Services - 

(materials & supplies) 15,000 
Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 

for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 626.680 

Total DPH Central Office $ 681,680 

Grand Total $12,662,437 

Comments: 1. The DPH is projecting these expenditures of $12,662,437 to 

be incurred through the end of the fiscal year. However, 
some of these expenditures will already be incurred prior to 
the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance. Since the DPH was 
unable to specify the amount of expenditures which would be 
incurred prior to the Board of Supervisors' consideration of 
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance, the 
Budget Analyst recommends if the Board of Supervisors 
approves the proposed ordinance, the proposed ordinance 
should be amended to approve the expenditure of these funds 
retroactively. 

2. According to San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), the 
proposed supplemental appropriation request for permanent 
salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay and temporary salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits and other fringe benefits - nurses 
is based on current expenditure trends. Overall, SFGH 
reports that these increased expenditure trends are a result 
of increased patient loads. 

3. SFGH also reports that the $1,400,000 projected deficit for 
contractual services consists of $1,200,000 for increased use of 
nurses and pharmacists' registries, and $200,000 which has 
been budgeted for additional facilities and maintenance 
contracts which the DPH anticipates completing in order to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



provide improvements for an accreditation and licensure 
survey performed by the Joint Co mmi ssion on Accreditation 
of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which will occur in 
October, 1992 (See Comment #14). 

4. SFGH indicates that the $1,999,600 projected deficit for 
materials and supplies would be required for increased costs 
associated with new drugs and technology ($400,000), drug 
volume increases ($400,000), increased blood usage ($200,000), 
repayment to the State for AZT ($827,600) and various other 
materials and supplies ($172,000) needed for an accreditation 
and licensure survey (See Comment #14). 

5. The $140,000 request is for an overexpenditure of services 
provided by the City Attorney and the $421,000 request is for a 
deficiency in the workers compensation account. The Board 
of Supervisors are also considering another supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-91-69, Item #10) for 
workers compensation for various City departments. The 
request for supplemental funds for workers compensation at 
SFGH is not included in that request (File 101-91-69, Item 
#10). 

6. The $349,798 would be used to continue to provide 
Proposition 99 California Healthcare for the Indigent 
Program (CHIP) hospital services at SFGH. These additional 
funds are required as a result of reduced State revenues 
available through Proposition 99. 

7. The $528,000 is being requested by SFGH for Facilities 
Maintenance and Capital Projects proposed by SFGH in order 
to comply with the accreditation and licensure survey. This 
request is in addition to the $200,000 budgeted under 
contractual services, and the $172,000 for materials and 
supplies. Therefore, there is a total of $900,000 requested in 
this supplemental appropriation for Facilities Maintenance 
and Capital Projects associated with the accreditation and 
licensure survey. SFGH reports that based upon previous 
surveys completed, the new standards which would be 
applied in this survey would emphasize the Hospital's 1) 
urgent life-safety Code (Fire Code) and health and safety 
violations, 2) Emergency maintenance and survey 
preparation, and 3) compliance with previous citations. 
These projects are as follows: 

Fire and Smoke Controls $255,000 

Fire Doors 40,000 

Electrical Distribution Switch 30,000 

Emergency Stairwell Lighting 36,000 

Fire Exiting Signage 15,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Ethylene Oxide (ETO) Safety/ 

development of an exhaust duct $ 50,000 

Pigeon Abatement/Clean-up (reduce health 

risk to patients and staff) 70,000 

Asbestos Abatement 12,000 

Plumbing/Electrical/Carpentry/ 

Plaster/Painting 307,000 

Drapery Installation (Window curtains 

and privacy drapes for inpatient 

areas) 25,000 

Electrical Distribution Inspection 30,000 

Surgicenter Project Preparation 15,000 

Pathology Ventilation 15.000 

Total $900,000 

8. According to Mr. Jerry Rankin of SFGH, supplemental 
funding is being requested currently rather than as part of 
SFGH's 1992-93 budget because long lead times are required 
for these projects, and because the fiscal year 1992-93 budget 
does not contain sufficient funds to complete the projects 
required for the accreditation and licensure survey. 
According to SFGH expenditure reports, the funds budgeted 
for Facilities Maintenance during the current fiscal year 
were approximately $740,000, and these funds have been 
entirely expended. In addition, Mr. Peter Praetz of SFGH 
reports that although $937,000 was requested for Facilities 
Maintenance in SFGH's fiscal year 1992-93 budget, the Mayor 
is recommending approximately $300,000 for Facilities 
Maintenance. The Budget Analyst has not yet completed a 
detailed review of SFGH's fiscal year budget (See Comment 
#14). 

9. As noted above, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance also includes $4,949,317 which would be 
transferred to the General Fund representing SFGH's 
contribution to the current year deficit plan. 

10. The $483,042 budgeted for Workers' Compensation at 
LHH is projected for underfunded Workers' Compensation 
expenditures for fiscal year 1991-92. As previously noted, the 
Board of Supervisors is also considering another 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-91-69, Item 
#10) for workers compensation for various City department. 
The request for supplemental funds for workers 
compensation at LHH is not included in that request (File 
101-91-69, Item #10). 

11. The DPH reports that based on current expenditure 
trends, it is estimated that the mandatory fringe benefit 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



account for DPH's Central Office will be overexpended by 
$40,000. 

12. The DPH also reports that an additional $15,000 would be 
required for materials and supplies to provide for higher 
costs associated with pharmaceuticals used by the Family 
Planning Program, including the purchase of Norplant 
system-kits, which is a new birth control technology. 

13. The $626,680 would be used to continue to provide 
Proposition 99 California Healthcare for the Indigent 
Program (CHIP) hospital and administrative services 
provided by the DPH. These additional funds are required as 
a result of reduced State revenues available through 
Proposition 99. 

14. The Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
$4,949,317 which would be transferred to the General Fund 
representing SFGH's contribution to the current year 1991-92 
deficit plan as previously represented by the Mayors' Office 
and the Controller. 

Given that the State is projecting a shortfall in Proposition 99 
funds for the California Healthcare for the Indigent Program 
(CHIP), the Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
following CHIP Services: 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 
for the Indigent Program (CHIP) $ 349,798 

DPH - Central Office 
Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 
for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 626.680 

Subtotal CHIP Services $ 976,478 

The Controller's eight-month 1991-92 Financial Status Report 
dated March 30, 1992 projected deficits in permanent 
salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, temporary salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits and other fringe benefits totalling 
$2,477,000 for San Francisco General Hospital, and it was 
anticipated that SFGH would request a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance to cover the projected deficit to be 
funded by increased hospital revenues. Although the 
Controller projected a deficit totalling $2,477,000, based upon 
actual expenditures by SFGH through March 31, 1992, SFGH 
is requesting funds totalling $1,710,000 as outlined below. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
following items: 

HO AIM) OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous $ 657,400 

Permanent Salaries - Craft 17,000 

Permanent Salaries - Nurses 404,500 

Overtime Pay 15,200 

Holiday Pay 19,300 

Temporary Salaries 85,300 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 251,300 

Other Fringe Benefits - Nurses 260.000 

Subtotal $ 1,710,000 

The Controller's eight-month 1991-92 Financial Status Report 
dated March 30, 1992 also projected a deficit for workers 
compensation for both SFGH and LHH which are consistent 
with the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of the following items: 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Workers Compensation $ 421,000 

Tjifiina Honda Hospital 

Workers' Compensation 483,042 

Subtotal $ 904,042 

In addition, based upon the projected deficits in the Financial 
Status Report dated March 30, 1992, and based upon the 
actual expenditure information provided by SFGH, the 
Budget Analyst recommends approval of the following items: 

San Francisco General Hospita l 

Contractual Services $ 1,200,000 

Materials & Supplies 1,827,600 

City Attorney 140,000 

DPH - Central Office 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 40,000 

Community Public Health Services 15.000 

Subtotal $ 3,222,600 

However, given that the Budget Analyst has not yet completed 
a detailed review of the DPH's 1992-93 fiscal year budget, 
including a detailed review of the proposed facilities 
maintenance projects in conjunction with other requested 
budget items, the Budget Analyst believes that the $900,000 
requested for facilities maintenance projects should be 
continued until the Budget Analyst, the Finance Committee 
and the full Board of Supervisors has completed a detailed 
review of the DPH's 1992-93 budget as recommended by the 
Mayor. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



San Francisco General Hospital 

Contractual Services 
Materials & Supplies 
Facilities Maintenance & Capital Projects 
Total 



$ 200,000 
172,000 
528.000 

$ 900,000 



15. According to Mr. Richard Cordova of SFGH, the hospital 
requires the requested $900,000 in funds for the above-listed 
facilities maintenance projects prior to the budget review by 
the Budget Analyst, the Finance Committee, and the full 
Board of Supervisors, and therefore, Mr. Cordova disagrees 
with the Budget Analyst's recommendation, particularly 
since these projects deal with accreditation. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve funds totalling $11,762,437 for the following items: 



San Francisco General Hospital 




Transfer to General Fund 


$ 4,949,317 


Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 




for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 


349,798 


Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous 


657,400 


Permanent Salaries - Craft 


17,000 


Permanent Salaries - Nurses 


404,500 


Overtime Pay 


15,200 


Holiday Pay 


19,300 


Temporary Salaries 


85,300 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


251,300 


Other Fringe Benefits - Nurses 


260,000 


Workers Compensation 


421,000 


Contractual Services 


1,200,000 


Materials & Supplies 


1,827,600 


City Attorney 


140,000 


DPH - Central Office 




Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 




for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 


$ 626,680 


Workers Compensation 


483,042 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


40,000 


Community Public Health Services 


15.000 


Total 


$11,762,437 



2. Continue the balance of the requested amount of $900,000 
as detailed above, pending completion of the Budget Analyst's 
detailed review of the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 budget 
for the DPH. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 9 -File 101-91-68 

Department Police Department 



Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance for medical services 
of Police Department for Fiscal Year 1991-92 

$184,000 

General Fund - General Reserve 

The Police Department reports that effective March 6, 1992, 
the Department of Labor/Office of Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR Part 1910.1030- 
Occupational Exposure to Bloodborne Pathogens, Final Rule, 
mandates that "the employer shall make available the 
Hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to all employees 
who have occupational exposure", and that such services 
must be "made available at no cost to the employee." 

The Hepatitis B virus is a bloodborne disease. Based on 
information provided by the State Department of Health 
Services and the Center for Disease Control, the Department 
of Public Health, Bureau of Epidemiology and Disease 
Control reported in 1991 that each year in the United States 
an estimated 300,000 persons, primarily young adults, 
become infected with Hepatitis B. Of this total, approximately 
25 percent or 75,000 develop jaundice, more than 10,000 
require hospitalization and an average of 250 die of sudden 
disease. According to the DPH, Bureau of Epidemiology and 
Disease Control (BEDC), it is estimated that there are 750,000 
to 1 million infectious carriers of Hepatitis B in the United 
States. Approximately 25 percent of carriers develop chronic 
active Hepatitis, which often progresses to cirrhosis of the 
liver. Further, carriers have a risk of developing primary 
liver cancer that is 12 to 300 times higher than that of other 
persons. The DPH, BEDC reported that serologic surveys 
demonstrate that although Hepatitis B infection is 
uncommon among adults in the general population, it is 
highly prevalent in certain groups. Those at high risk for 
acquiring Hepatitis B infection, include the following: 

1) Persons born in areas where Hepatitis B is highly 
endemic; their descendants; and highly Hepatitis B — 
endemic populations (i.e., Alaskan Natives and Pacific 
Islanders. 

2) Homosexuals. 

3) Persons who have sexual activity with multiple partners. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



4) Intravenous drug users. 

5) Inmates of prisons (usually drug related). 

6) Patients in custodial institutions for the developmentally 
disabled. 

7) Persons with occupational risks, including medical and 
dental workers, related laboratory and support personnel 
and public service employees who have contact with blood, 
as well as staff in institutions or classrooms for the 
developmentally disabled. 

In response to the Department of Labor/OSHA's above noted 
mandate, the Police Department has arranged for St. Francis 
Memorial Hospital to provide Hepatitis B antibody screening, 
vaccination series and confirmatory antibody tests to 
approximately 1,800 sworn personnel of the Police 
Department. 

Sergeant Woody Tennant of the Police Department reports 
that Police Department sworn personnel began receiving 
antibody test screenings and vaccinations in April of 1992. Of 
the 1,800 sworn personnel, 1,100 have been screened for 
antibodies. Of the 1,100 that have been screened for 
antibodies, approximately 880 (80 percent) have been found 
not to have antibodies and as such, have received 
vaccinations. Additionally, Sergeant Tennant advises that of 
the 1,100 sworn personnel that have received antibody test 
screening ten (10) have been found to be infected with the 
Hepatitis B virus. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Tom Strong of the Police Department reports that the 

cost per unit for the Hepatitis B test screening is $30 and the 
cost for the series of three Hepatitis B vaccinations is $155. 
The total cost to provide test screenings for the 1,800 sworn 
personnel is $54,000 ($30 per unit cost x 1,800). Based on 80 
percent of the entire 1,800 sworn personnel requiring 
vaccinations or 1,440, the total vaccination costs would be 
$223,200 (1,440 x $155), for a total one-time cost of $277,200 
including test screenings and vaccinations. Any additional 
costs incurred for these services would apply to new 
personnel. Mr. Strong advises that the Police Department 
has budgeted $104,000 in its 1992-93 budget to supplement the 
cost of the Hepatitis B test screenings and vaccinations. The 
$104,000 plus the proposed supplemental appropriation 
amount of $184,000 would make available a total of $288,000 
for this purpose, or $10,800 more than the $277,200 estimated 
amount needed to pay for the test screenings and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

vaccinations for the 1,800 sworn personnel. According to Mr. 
Strong, the $10,800 would be used to pay for Hepatitis B test 
screenings and vaccinations for any new personnel requiring 
these services in 1992-93. 

3. Mr. Strong advises that, as of the writing of this report, the 
Police Department is unaware of any available outside 
funding (i.e., State or Federal) that could be used to pay for 
the Department's costs to provide the Hepatitis B test 
screenings and vaccinations. 

4. As noted above, the Police Department has reported that 
the sworn personnel began receiving antibody test screenings 
and vaccinations in April of 1992. As such, the proposed 
ordinance should be amended to authorize the supplemental 
appropriation retroactively. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed ordinance to make the supplemental 
appropriation retroactive and approve the ordinance as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPKKV1SORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 10 - File 101-91-69 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description 






Employees Retirement System 

Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$5,888,460 for Workers Compensation 1991-92. 

$5,888,460 

General Fund 

The Employees Retirement System (ERS) has determined 
that there is an anticipated shortfall in the Workers 
Compensation costs of $5,888,460 from the General Fund 
General Reserve. 

The ERS Workers Compensation Division administers the 
provisions contained in the California Labor Code relative to 
industrial injuries sustained by employees. These benefits 
include medical payments, indemnity payments and 
rehabilitation. All employees of the City and County of San 
Francisco and the San Francisco Unified School District 
receive treatment for job-incurred injuries or illnesses. In 
addition to providing for the care and treatment of injured 
employees, the Workers Compensation Division processes all 
injury claims and determines eligibility for Workers 
Compensation benefits and disburses payments for medical 
and other expenses incurred as a result of work-related 
injuries or illnesses. 

Workers Compensation costs to the City include direct injury 
payments for legal services, medical services, permanent 
disability, rehabilitation, and temporary disability. 

The $5,888,460 for Workers Compensation would be allocated 
as follows: 

Employees Retirement System (ERS) $27,338 

Juvenile Court 235,360 

Police Department 2,073,721 

Fire Department 1,301,739 

Sheriff 365,938 

Department of Social Services 151,180 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Municipal Railway $1,141,517 

Recreation and Park 349,334 

Miscellaneous Small Departments 42,333 

City Attorney (includes workers 

compensation-related attorney fees) 200,000 

TOTAL REQUEST $5,888,460 

Comments: 1. Based on actual expenditures from July 1, 1991 to April 

30, 1992, and estimated expenditures for May and June of 
1992 the Budget Analyst projects shortfalls (excluding costs 
for the City Attorney) in Workers Compensation costs as 
follows: 

Annual 
Expenditures Projected Amt. Included 
7/1/91- Expenditures in 1991-1992 Projected 
4/30/92 5/1/92-6/30/92 Budget Shortfall 



ERS 


$42,698 


$8,510 


$35,657 


$15,551 


Juvenile Court 


320,226 


64,044 


148,910 


235,360 


Police Department 


4,893,260 


978,652 


3,798,191 


2,073,721 


Fire Department 


3,785,199 


757,140 


3,240,600 


1,301,739 


Sheriff 


648,949 


129,790 


412,801 


365,938 


Department of Social 
Services 


353,559 


70,712 


273,091 


151,180 


Municipal Railway 


5,631,597 


1,126,319 


5,616,399 


1,141,517 


Recreation and Park 


1,095,907 


219,192 


965,765 


349,334 


Misc. Small Departments 96,855 


19,371 


107,948 


8,278 


City Attorney's Office 








200.000 


Total Projected Shortfall 






$5,842,618 



City Attorney's fees, at $200,000, are based on an estimate 
from the City Attorney's Office to ERS regarding anticipated 
expenditures for the remainder of the fiscal year. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



The Budget Analyst's projections substantially agree with the 
supplemental appropriation request for all departments 
except ERS and the miscellaneous small departments. The 
proposed supplemental appropriation: (1) would fund ERS at 
$27,338, when only $15,551 is anticipated to be required, a 
difference of $11,787; and (2) would fund the miscellaneous 
small departments at $42,333, when only $8,278 is anticipated 
to be required, a difference of $34,055. Therefore, the proposed 
supplemental appropriation should be amended to reduce 
ERS from $27,338 to $15,551, a difference of $11,787, and to 
reduce Services of Other Departments from $1,711,702 to 
$1,677,647, a difference of $34,055. (Services of Other 
Departments in the proposed supplemental appropriation, at 
$1,711,702 includes the Department of Social Services, 
Municipal Railway, the Recreation and Park Department, 
and various small departments.) 

2. The proposed supplemental appropriation contains one 
error. The Department and Number column on page two, 
line eight should be amended to read "30-4200 (302117)" rather 
than "30-3700 (302117)." 

3. The proposed supplemental appropriation would be funded 
by the General Fund's General Reserve. 

4. According to a report prepared by the Chief Administrative 
Officer's (CAO) Risk Manager, Mr. Keith Grand, in January 
of 1991, 7,000 of the City's 25,000 employees, or almost one in 
four employees, file Workers Compensation claims annually. 
The City loses over 150,000 work days due to job related 
injuries and illnesses. The Risk Manager's report advises 
that San Francisco files more than double the State average 
rate of Workers Compensation claims and City employees 
stay off the job an average of twice as long as the State 
average. 

5. A Workers Compensation Task Force, formed at the 
request of the Mayor, issued a report on January 6, 1992 
identifying problem areas in the Workers Compensation 
program and making recommendations to alleviate the 
problems. The Task Force's report indicated, among other 
things, that Workers Compensation costs are high because 
the Workers Compensation Division of ERS is understaffed 
and adjusters are unable to thoroughly evaluate claims; 
policies and procedures are not standardized; training for 
managers, supervisors and employees is inadequate; and 
adequate return to work or light duty programs do not exist 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



The Workers Compensation Task Force that authored the 
January 6, 1992 report has disbanded. 

6. A permanent Workers Compensation Task Force, which is 
completely separate from the previously noted Workers 
Compensation Task Force created at the request of the 
Mayor, was created by the Board of Supervisors in September 
1991. The permanent Workers Compensation Task Force 
consists of eight members, including: (1) the Risk Manager; 
(2) the Mayor's Budget Director; (3) the Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst; (4) the General Manager of the Retirement 
System; (5) the Director of Employees Relations Division; (6) 
the General Manager of Civil Service; and (7) two department 
heads to be designated by the other Task Force members. The 
permanent Task Force is anticipated to issue a report to the 
City Services Committee in July 1992, Ms. Margaret Kisliuk, 
Chair of the Task Force, advises. 

7. According to Ms. Kisliuk, numerous new measures are 
anticipated to be implemented to reduce Workers 
Compensation costs, as follows: 

• In fiscal year 1992-93, the City is anticipated to contract 
out Workers Compensation activities. $840,000 has been 
included in the Mayor's FY 1992-93 budget for this 
proposed contract, Ms. Kisliuk advises. The contract 
would include incentives to reduce Workers 
Compensation costs by allowing the contractor to share a 
portion of any savings from contractor activity. The 
proposed contract would be an 18-month pilot project, 
according to Ms. Kisliuk. 

• A preferred provider system is being established, whereby 
participating doctors are paid lower fees in exchange for 
ERS referrals. Ms. Kisliuk reports that approximately 60 
percent of Workers Compensation claimants are 
estimated to use ERS-referred doctors. 

• The Task Force is developing a City-wide light duty 
program, where able Workers Compensation claimants 
perform light duty while receiving benefits. 

Ms. Kisliuk advises that departments have lately exhibited 
greater awareness of workplace safety, and Workers 
Compensation costs are anticipated to decline as a result. 
However, according to Ms. Kisliuk, since a large portion of 
Workers Compensation costs consist of payments for claims 
from preceding years, and because Workers Compensation 
eligibility and benefits are largely determined by State 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



mandates, the City has limited control of Workers 
Compensation costs. 

Ms. Kisliuk advises that the permanent Task Force concurs 
with the previous Mayor's Task Force's contention that the 
major reason for high Workers Compensation costs is the 
high caseload of Workers Compensation claims adjusters, 
and adjusters' consequent inability to evaluate claims. 

8. Budget estimates for Workers Compensation have been low 
every year for the past six years. Supplemental 
Appropriations were approved in each of these years. 

9. The Budget Analyst previously reported to the Finance 
Committee and the full Board of Supervisors in June of 1991 
during the 1991-92 budget review that Workers Compensation 
costs were underbudgeted in the Mayor's recommended 
Fiscal Year 1991-92 budget. 

10. In addition to the $5,888,460 requested for various General 
Fund funded departments, a second supplemental 
appropriation request is currently being considered by the 
Board of Supervisors for Laguna Honda Hospital, at $483,042, 
and San Francisco General Hospital, at $421,000, for a total of 
$904,042 (Item 8, File 101-91-67). 

11. A total of $20,681,566 was included in the fiscal year 1991- 
92 budget for Workers Compensation. In addition to the 
$5,842,618 projected shortfall for General Fund funded 
departments included in this supplemental appropriation 
request, $1,400,669 is anticipated to be transferred from 
budget surpluses to Workers Compensation in various 
departments, such as the Airport, Department of Parking 
and Traffic, and Superior Court, and $749,418 has already 
been transferred to Workers Compensation in various 
enterprise fund departments. Including the $20,681,566 
included in the original FY 1991-92 budget, the $5,842,618 
projected shortfall included in this supplemental 
appropriation request, the $904,042 included in the 
supplemental appropriation request for San Francisco 
General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital (Item 8, File 
101-91-67), the $1,400,669 to be transferred within 
departments, and the $749,418 which has already been 
transferred within departments, a total of $29,578,313 is 
anticipated to be expended for Workers Compensation in FY 
1991-92. 

12. In contrast to this projection of actual 1991-92 
expenditures of $29,578,313, only $25,487,494 has been 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

included in the Mayor's recommended budget for Workers 
Compensation in FY 1992-93. Although $25,487,494 
represents an increase of $4,805,928 over the $20,681,566 
included in the FY 1991-92 budget, in fact, the $25,487,494 
included in the Mayor's proposed 1992-93 budget is $4,090,819, 
or approximately 14 percent, less than the $29,578,313 
amount projected to be incurred in FY 1991-92. 

13. As noted above, a number of new measures are to be 
implemented in 1992-93 in order to reduce Workers 
Compensation costs, including the use of an outside 
contractor. However, unless such measures result in savings 
exceeding $4.1 million, the Budget Analyst projects that 
Workers Compensation costs have been underbudgeted 
significantly in the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 budget. 

14. Any outside contractor for the Workers Compensation 
Program included in the FY 1992-93 budget would be funded 
from approximately January 1, 1993 to June 30, 1993. The 
Budget Analyst anticipates recommending during the 1992- 
93 budget review that any funds included in the FY 1992-93 
budget for an outside contractor be partially reserved, so that 
the Workers Compensation Division would be required to 
report back to the Finance Committee after five months 
regarding savings accrued in Workers Compensation as a 
result of the contractor's activities. 

Recommendations: (1) Amend the proposed supplemental appropriation to 
reduce ERS from $27,338 to $15,551, a reduction of $11,787; 
and to reduce Services of Other Departments from $1,711,702 
to $1,677,647, a difference of $34,055, for a total reduction of 
$45,842. 

(2) Amend the Department and Number column on page two, 
fine eight to read "30-4200 (302117)" rather than "30-3700 
(302117)." 

(3) Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation as 
amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

58 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 11 - File 101-91-70 

Department Sheriff Department 

Item: Ordinance appropriating $509,000 for materials and supplies, 

Sheriff Department, for fiscal year 1991-92; releasing reserve 
of $101,301 from permanent salaries. 

Amount: $509,000 requested supplemental appropriation 

$ 101 301 requested release of reserve funds 
$610,301 total request 

Source of Funds: General Fund, General Reserve 



Description: 



Comment: 



The proposed ordinance concerns requests by the Sheriffs 
Department both for a supplemental appropriation and for 
the release of reserve funds. However, the $101,301 request 
for release of reserve funds was already considered by the 
Finance Committee on May 27, 1992 (File No. 101-91-1.1). 
Therefore, only the requested $509,000 supplemental 
appropriation remains to be considered. 

The $509,000 supplemental appropriation is requested to pay 
the cost of food, materials, and supplies for custody 
operations of the Sheriffs Department through the 
remainder of the fiscal year. The Sheriff reports that due to a 
12 percent increase in the jail population in the current fiscal 
year, a budget shortfall exists for food, materials and 
supplies for custody operations. The Sheriff reports that the 
average daily population in the County jails has increased 
from 1,826 in 1990-91 to 2,044 in the current year, an increase 
of 11. 9 percent. 

Of the $509,000 in supplemental funds requested, $289,000 
was originally requested to pay for food costs, and $220,000 
was originally requested to pay for additional supplies, such 
as clothing, sheets, blankets, toilet paper, paper towels, 
garbage bags, and cleaning supplies. (The Sheriffs 
Department presently estimates that it needs only $464,663, or 
$44,337 less than the $509,000 requested. This current 
estimate includes $271,364 for food purchases and $193,299 for 
clothing and other supplies, such as sheets, towels, cleaning 
supplies, and toiletries.) 

1. Lt. Jan Dempsey, Financial Services Manager for the 
Sheriffs Department, reports that the Sheriff has budgeted 
$3.2 million for food expenditures in the current fiscal year. 
Of this amount, the Sheriff had expended $2,564,483 for food 
through March 25, 1992. Based on this rate of food 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



expenditures for the fiscal year to date, the Budget Analyst 
estimates that food expenditures for the remainder of the 
fiscal year would be $901,035. A supplemental appropriation 
would therefore be required as follows: 

Amount budgeted for food in FY 199 1-92 $3,200,000 

Actual Expenditures to March 25, 1992 ($2,564,483) 

Projected Expenditures March 26 - June 30, 1992: (901.035) 

Total projected expenditures, FY 1991-92: (3.465.518) 

Amount of projected shortfall: ($265,518) 

Supplemental Appropriation as Requested: 289.000 

Reduction from Requested Appropriation: $23,482 

2. The Sheriffs Department has requested a supplemental 
appropriation of $220,000 in order to purchase clothing and 
other personal supplies for inmates for the remainder of the 
fiscal year. However, as previously noted, based on the 
number of orders which are currently outstanding and 
which must be paid prior to June 30, the Sheriff presently 
estimates a need of only $193,299. 

Orders have been placed for inmate clothing, sheets, 
blankets, toilet paper, paper towels, cleaning supplies, and a 
range of other products related to custodial functions of the 
County Jail. Lt. Dempsey indicates that approximately 65 
percent (equivalent to $125,644) of the outstanding orders are 
for articles of clothing. Lt. Dempsey states that the Sheriff 
orders large quantities of inmate clothing twice each year, 
usually in April and August, and places smaller quantities 
throughout the year. She also states that under the terms of 
a consent decree now in effect, the Sheriff is required to 
maintain two sets of clothing "on the shelf for each set of 
clothing issued to inmates, but that the Sheriff has had 
difficulty complying with this requirement as the inmate 
population has increased. In addition to an estimated 
$125,644 for clothing, an additional amount of $67,655 is 
needed for other supplies, for a total of $193,299, or $26,701 
less than the original request. 

3. As stated above, the Budget Analyst projects a need for 
food expenditures through the end of the fiscal year of 
$265,518, or $23,482 less than the $289,000 originally 
requested. A supplemental appropriation is therefore 
recommended in the amount of $458,817 ($265,518 for food + 
$193,299 for clothing, materials and supplies). 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Recommendations: Amend the proposed ordinance by deleting references in the 
title to the release of reserve funds of $101,301 from 
permanent salaries. 

Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the supplemental 
appropriation request of $509,000 by $50,183 ($23,482 for food 
and $26,701 for materials and supplies), to $458,817. 

Approve the proposed ordinance, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 12 - File 101-91-71 



Amount : 
Source of Funds: 



Description; 



Department: Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency 

Item: Supplemental appropriation ordinance for permanent 

salaries - miscellaneous, mandatory fringe benefits, 
professional services, medical services contracts and EDP 
service - EIPSC and Proposition J/Civil Service Commission, 
Public Health for fiscal year 1991-92. 

$943,616 

Appropriation of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fund 
monies (Parking Traffic Fines). State SB12 established that 
Counties could impose a two dollar assessment on traffic 
fines to be deposited to an Emergency Medical Services Fund. 

The San Francisco Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Fund 
was established in 1988. The purpose of the Fund is to 
reimburse private physicians and hospitals for 
uncompensated care and other emergency medical services. 
Under the guidelines of SB 12, the Fund is to be distributed as 
follows: up to 10 percent for administrative costs; thereafter, 
up to 58 percent to private physicians providing emergency 
services in acute care private hospitals, up to 25 percent to 
hospitals providing emergency medical services, and up to 17 
percent for other emergency medical purposes provided by 
various public and private enterprises. The proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance would be used for (a) 
claims processing of SB 12 emergency physician services, 
through a newly integrated program with the AB 75, 
California Healthcare for the Indigent Program (CHIP), (b) 
to provide reimbursements to private hospitals and private 
physicians that provide emergency medical services, (c) the 
installation of upgraded radios and computers for the EMS 
hospital network, and (d) continued funding for a Disaster 
Planner responsible for the coordination activities for the 
EMS Agency's Disaster Preparedness Program. 

Comments: 1. The DPH reports that the proposed $943,616 in SB 12 

funding would be used as follows: 



Administration 

Professional Services Contract 

Physician Services 
Physician reimbursements 



$ 51,000 
550,948 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
RUDCET ANALYST 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Hospital Services 

Hospital Reimbursements $ 51,000 

Electronic Data Processing (EDP) 280,000 

Other Emergency Services 
2533 EMS Agency Specialist 

(Includes salary and fringe benefit 

monies for 4.4 biweekly pay periods) 10.668 

Total Supplemental $943,616 

2. The $51,000 budgeted for a Professional Services Contract 
for Administration would be used for a fiscal intermediary, 
Medicus Systems, to process claims for services provided by 
EMS physicians. According to Ms. Abbie Yant of the DPH's 
EMS Agency, the services funded for Medicus Systems 
through this supplemental appropriation ordinance are 
ongoing and would continue to be provided through 
December 31, 1992. Medicus Systems also processes claims 
under the AB 75 California Healthcare for the Indigent 
Program (CHIP) project. Services provided by Medicus 
Systems includes processing and paying claims, generating 
reports, to maintain physician relations to facilitate claims 
processing, and to assist in program and policy development 
to increase the EMS Agency's administrative effectiveness. 
Ms. Yant reports that the EMS Agency would modify the 
existing contract with Medicus Systems for services provided 
under the AB 75 project, and merge these claims processing 
services with other EMS Agency services. Under the 
expanded contract, Ms. Yant estimates that the EMS Agency 
would save approximately $200,000 to $300,000 annually 
under an expanded contract versus entering into a separate 
contract for claims processing for the EMS Agency. 

3. Ms. Yant reports that the claims processing services have 
been provided by Medicus Systems for the EMS Agency since 
approximately November, 1991. Ms. Yant explains that 
because of changes in State policy guidelines, there were 
delays in establishing the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 
program, and thus this contract has been previously funded 
through AB 75 revenues. In addition, Ms. Yant also reports 
that because it is anticipated that decreased AB 75 revenues 
would be received by the DPH for fiscal year 1992-93, the DPH 
is intending to expand the existing Medicus Systems 
contract, and supplement the existing contract from the 
EMS Special Fund monies. The projected total estimated 
revenues to be collected into the EMS Special Fund through 
June 30, 1992 is approximately $1,551,200. Ms. Yant reports 
that although Medicus Systems would not begin to process 
claims until approximately July 1, 1992 through December 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



31, 1992, thus far, Medicus Systems has provided ongoing 
services and the EMS owes approximately $15,000 for start up 
costs associated with claims processing for the EMS Agency. 
Ms. Yant reports that additional funds are requested in the 
DPH's budget for FY 1992-93 for continuation of the Medicus 
contract throughout the end of FY 1992-93. Therefore, if the 
Board of Supervisors approves the proposed supplemental 
appropriation ordinance, the proposed ordinance should be 
amended to authorize the EMS Agency to expend $15,000 
retroactively. 

4. Medicus Systems which is neither a City-certified MBE or 
WBE firm, was awarded the contract under a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) process, according to Ms. Yant. Ms. Yant 
reports that the $51,000 contract amount for Medicus Systems 
is not based on an hourly rate, but rather was based on the 
four service areas which would be provided by Medicus 
Systems. Services provided by Medicus Systems include 
processing and paying claims, generating reports, 
maintaining physician relations to facilitate claims 
processing, and assisting in program and policy development 
to increase the EMS Agency's administrative effectiveness. 

5. The $550,948 budgeted for physician reimbursements 
would be used for emergency services rendered by private 
physicians during FY 1991-92. 

6. The $51,000 budgeted for Hospital Reimbursements under 
Hospital Services would be disbursed by the EMS Agency to 
hospitals located in San Francisco for the costs associated 
with receiving patients into their emergency departments. 
Hospitals located in San Francisco would receive payments 
in direct proportion to the number of patients received into 
their emergency departments by 911 ambulances. Ms. Yant 
explains that hospitals that provide emergency services may 
not receive reimbursements directly from patients for costs 
associated with treatment of patients into their emergency 
departments. Ms. Yant indicates that because hospitals 
cannot legally refuse treatment to emergency patients, there 
can be a financial loss. In addition, Ms. Yant reports that 
because SFGH is the largest provider of emergency services 
in San Francisco, SFGH would receive approximately 50 
percent of the funds budgeted for hospital reimbursements, 
or approximately $25,500. 

7. The $280,000 budgeted for Electronic Data Processing 
(EDF) Services under Hospital Services would bo used for 
contractual services to provide computer hardware, software, 
installation and training for comprehensive interhospital 
communication system enhancements, including radio 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

equipment, installation and networking of computer systems 
with emergency provider hospitals in San Francisco. Ms. 
Yant reports that the proposed network computer system 
would be used to enhance the EMS Agency's networking 
communications system with the emergency provider 
hospitals, the City's Emergency Command Center and the 
emergency dispatch center under the DPH's Paramedics 
Division. However, the contractor has not yet been selected, 
and EISPC has not yet approved the proposed EDP Services. 
Therefore, the $280,000 budgeted for Electronic Data 
Processing (EDP) contractual services should be reserved 
pending EISPC approval, the MBE and/or WBE status of the 
contractors and finalized contract cost details. 

8. The $10,668 budgeted for the 2533 EMS Agency Specialist 
would be used to fund this existing position in the DPH 
through the end of the fiscal year. The 2533 EMS Agency 
Specialist is responsible for writing the Department's 
disaster plan and conducting regular training programs, 
exercises and drills. As noted above, the $10,668 budgeted for 
this position includes funding for 4.4 biweekly pay periods, 
Ms. Yant reports that this position was filled in February, 
1992, and has thus far been funded through previously 
appropriated EMS Special Fund monies, and through other 
available funds for Temporary Salaries. Therefore, the 
$10,668 request would partially reimburse the DPH's 
Temporary Salaries account and also provide payment for 
this position through the end of the fiscal year. The 2533 EMS 
Agency Specialist is included in the DPH's FY 1992-93 budget 
at an annual cost of approximately $53,322 to be funded 
through EMS Special Fund monies. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reserve the $280,000 
budgeted for Electronic Data Processing (EDP) contractual 
services pending EISPC approval, the MBE and/or WBE 
status of the contractors and finalized contract cost details. 

2. Amend the proposed ordinance to authorize the EMS 
Agency to expend $15,000 of the proposed supplemental funds 
for the Medicus Systems contract retroactively. 

3. Approve the proposed resolution as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 13 - File 101-91-73 

Department: Juvenile Probation Department 

Item: Supplemental Appropriation Ordinance for professional 

services for the Juvenile Probation Department 

Amount : $44,573 

Source of Funds: General Fund - Juvenile Justice Program Reserve 

Description: During the 1990-91 budget process, the Board of Supervisors 

established a $100,000 General Fund Juvenile Justice 
Program Reserve to be used to initiate an Intensive Home 
Supervision/Community Case Management (IHS/CCM) 
Program for juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Probation 
Department advises that the program was scheduled to 
commence in FY 1990-91. However, due to administrative 
delays, the program did not get underway until the beginning 
of FY 1991-92. Subsequently, the Board of Supervisors 
approved a supplemental appropriation totalling $55,427 from 
the $100,000 Reserve for the IHS/CCM Program, for staff 
training ($54,980), travel ($161) and membership fees ($286). 
Therefore, there is a balance in the Reserve Fund of $44,573. 

The Juvenile Probation Department advises that an additional 
$100,000 was included in its 1991-92 budget for the IHS/CCM 
Program. These funds were used to pay for contract services 
with five non-profit organizations for the provision of services 
to youthful male and female offenders, ages 13 to 17, who are 
wards of Juvenile Court and under consideration for removal 
from home or the community-at-large, based on their pattern 
of law violations. Contracts with these five nonprofit 
organizations are in the amount of $20,000 each. The services 
provided by these non-profit organizations are an alternative 
to removing the youth from their homes or placing them in an 
institution. Services provided by the non-profit organizations 
are aimed at (1) ensuring public safety by providing intensive 
supervision of youths assigned to this program (i.e., a 
minimum of three face to face contacts each week and daily 
communication, (2) lessening the commitment of youths to 
institutions and private placements outside the home, (3) 
providing a comprehensive youth and family needs assessment 
and tailoring community educational, vocational, health and 
counseling services to effect positive behavior changes in the 
client youth and (4) lowering the incidence of delinquent 
recidivism. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

The Juvenile Probation Department is proposing to use the 
requested supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$44,573 to enhance and expand the contract services being 
provided by four of the five non-profit organizations. 

Comment: The Juvenile Probation Department has requested that this 

item be continued to the call of the Chair in order to have 
additional time to provide supportive documentation for this 
supplemental appropriation request. 

Recommendation: Continue this item to the call of the Chair as requested by the 
Juvenile Probation Department. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 14 -File 27-92-2 



Department: 
Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Airports Commission 

Ordinance approving Modification No. 5 of the Lease and Use 
Agreement between USAir, Inc. and the City and County of 
San Francisco acting by and through the Airports 
Commission. 

The existing lease with USAir, Inc. is for a 30-year term from 
July 1, 1981 to June 30, 2011. 

The proposed lease modification would allow USAir, Inc. to 
relinquish a portion of its exclusive use Phase III South 
Terminal leasehold consisting of 220 square feet of Category I 
(ticket counter) and 608 square feet of Category II (back office) 
space, both located in the West Sector of the South Terminal. 
Since the Airport intends to issue a permit for this space to 
Air Canada to accommodate Air Canada's operations, 
revenue to the Airport will remain unchanged. 

Airport space categories are defined as follows: 

Category I: Ticket Counters and Hold Rooms (waiting 

areas by gates) 
Category II: Ticket Counter Back Offices, VTP Clubs, 

Baggage Claim Lobbies 
Category III: Administrative and Operations Offices 

(basement level) 
Category IV: Baggage Handling Areas 
Category V: Unenclosed or Covered Areas (ramp level) 

1. USAir, Inc.'s Lease and Use Agreement Modification No. 
5 was adopted on May 5, 1992 by the Airports Commission 
Resolution No. 92-0146. 

2. The proposed ordinance would decrease USAir's exclusive 
space from 41,255 square feet to 40,427 square feet. The total 
amount of exclusive use space that would be leased by USAir, 
Inc. as a result of the proposed Modification No. 5 is as 
follows: 



Exclusive Use 

Category I 
Category II 
Category III 
Total 



Square Feet 

19,343 

9,632 

11.452 

40,427 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



The joint use space for USAir, Inc. would remain the same, 
as follows: 



Joint Use 

Category II 

Category IV 

Total 



Square Feet 

14,597 
19.959 
34,556 



3. Ms. Angela Gittens of the Airports Commission advises 
that the annual revenues to the Airport for the space that 
would be vacated will remain unchanged, since Air Canada 
intends to occupy the vacated space on a month-to-month 
permit basis at the same rate at which USAir has leased it. 
Ms. Gittens reports that the revenues involved in the space to 
be relinquished by USAir total $29,752.28 per year (220 square 
feet of Category I space @ $44.01 per square foot per year = 
$9,682.20; and 608 square feet of Category II space @ $33.01 
per square foot per year = $20,070.08). 

4. Ms. Gittens further reports that the Airports Commission 
has opted to rent the vacated space on a month-to-month 
permit basis to Air Canada so as to give the Airport as much 
flexibility as possible to respond to changes in the airline 
industry. She notes that ticket counter space is currently at a 
premium, but that the Airports Commission is charging all 
of the airlines the same rates for space at the Airport. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 

Item 15 -File 62-92-2 

Department Recreation and Park Department 

Item: Ordinance approving a ten year lease with Frederick Lo and 

Peter Fong, a Partnership, for establishing and operating a 
gift shop and tea house concession at the Japanese Tea 
Garden in Golden Gate Park. 

Description: The proposed ordinance would approve a lease with the 

Partnership of Frederick Lo and Peter Fong to establish and 
operate the Japanese Tea House and Gift Shop at the 
Japanese Tea Garden in Golden Gate Park. These facilities 
are presently operated by a different concessionaire. The 
proposed lease would take effect when and if it is approved by 
the Board of Supervisors and executed by the Mayor. 

The property to be leased consists of the Tea House, the Gift 
Shop, and a trash storage area in the Japanese Tea Garden, 
operation of the tour bus parking lot adjacent to the Tea 
Garden, and use of the parking lot ticket booth for sale of gift 
items. 

The Recreation and Park Department has submitted a list of 
five bidders (a copy of the list is attached) for the Japanese 
Tea Garden Concession, showing that the partnership of Lo 
and Fong (the "Lessee" under the proposed lease) was the 
highest bidder. The Recreation and Park Department and 
the Human Rights Commission have indicated that bidding 
preferences are not granted to Minority or Women's Business 
Enterprises for concessions of this type. 

Under the terms of the proposed lease, the Lessee would 
remit a minimum annual payment equal to the greater of 
$280,000 or 38.5 percent of gross receipts from the Gift Shop 
and the Tea House. In either case, additional rent would also 
be paid based on other revenues received, calculated at 10 
percent of the gross receipts from a gift shop at the tour bus 
ticket booth; 40 percent of all admission fees collected at the 
tour bus parking lot; all proceeds from the sale of Japanese 
Tea Garden brochures at either the Gift Shop or the parking 
lot ticket booth; and payments to an Improvement Fund in 
the amount of $15,000 during each of the first five years of the 
proposed lease and $35,000 per year in years 6-10 of the 
proposed lease, for total contributions to the Improvement 
Fund of $250,000 (see Comment No.7). 

In addition to the Improvement Fund contributions of 
$250,000, the Lessee would also finance, within one year from 
commencement of the proposed lease, at least $43,400 in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



capital improvements to the Japanese Tea Garden, following 
written authorization of the Recreation and Park Department 
(see Comment No. 6). All leaseholder improvements made 
over the term of the lease and affixed to the premises would 
become the property of the City and County of San Francisco. 
Those improvements consisting of trade fixtures, 
furnishings, or personal property used in the course of 
business would remain the property of the Lessee. 

Lessee would be granted the exclusive right to commercial 
operation of the Tea House and the Gift Shop at the Japanese 
Tea Garden. The Gift Shop would sell only those souvenirs 
and curios which reflect a Japanese or Asian character, and 
the proposed lease provides that nothing would be sold which 
is inappropriate to maintaining the "Japanese/Oriental 
spirit" of the Tea Garden. Operations at the Tea House would 
be limited to the sale of Japanese or Oriental tea and cookies, 
and juices and soft drinks. At the Tour Bus Parking Lot 
ticket booth, Lessee would be authorized to sell a range of 
products and souvenirs related to the Tea Garden, Golden 
Gate Park, and San Francisco. As part of the Tour Bus 
Parking Lot operation, Lessee would also collect parking fees. 

Admission to the Tea Garden would continue under the 
purview of the Recreation and Park Department, with City 
employees staffing the admission booth at the entrance to the 
Tea Garden. The fee for admission to the Tea Garden is now 
$2.00 for an adult, $1.00 per child, and $1.00 for senior 
citizens. 

The lease contains no option for renewal after the expiration 
of the ten year term of the lease. The proposed lease includes 
the following additional provisions: 

• Lessee would pay all costs of utility services, including the 
cost of bringing additional utility services to the premises, if 
necessary. 

• Lessee would be responsible for the cost of any necessary 
repairs or improvements in order to keep the premises which 
are governed by the lease in good condition, and would be 
required to make repairs to the satisfaction of the City and 
County. However, the City would reimburse Lessee for the 
cost of any additional improvements required within the 
Japanese Tea Garden which are authorized by the City and 
County but "not contemplated" by the proposed lease. The 
City would not guarantee ("warrant") the condition of the 
premises under the proposed lease and Lessee would accept 
the premises in the condition in which they are found at the 
commencement of the lease. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 

• Lessee would pay a security deposit of $45,000, refundable 
at the termination of the proposed lease if Lessee has 
complied with all of the terms and conditions of the proposed 
lease. 

• Rates and charges for gift items would be determined by 
the Lessee, but prices established for the operation of the Tea 
House and the tour bus parking lot are expected to be 
competitive and would be subject to approval by the 
Recreation and Park Commission. The Commission also 
would be granted a right under the proposed lease to object to 
the condition of the premises or the quality of service provided 
and to require all objectionable practices to be remedied or 
discontinued. 

• Lessee's operations under the proposed lease would be 
audited annually at the expense of Lessee, and an annual 
report of the audit would be submitted to the Recreation and 
Park Commission. 

• Lessee would operate the concession at all times that the 
Japanese Tea Garden is open to the public. 

• Lessee would be required to provide Worker's 
Compensation Insurance, Comprehensive General Liability 
Insurance, and Comprehensive Automobile Liability 
Insurance, each with limits of not less than $1 million, and 
Property Insurance providing for full replacement value of 
the building and fixtures. The proposed lease provides that 
each policy would name as an Additional Insured the City 
and County of San Francisco, Recreation and Park 
Commission, its officers, agents, or employees. 

• The Commission would be able to terminate the lease, 
upon written notice to Lessee, should the Lessee fail to 
perform any of its obligations under the lease and fails to 
respond to written demand by the Commission for remedial 
action. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Dennis Chan, Property Manager for the Recreation 

and Park Department, reports that under the terms of the 
lease now in effect, the City receives the higher of a lump 
sum payment of $50,000 or 30 percent of the gross revenues 
(defined as total revenues less sales taxes paid to State and 
local governments) of the Tea House and the Gift Shop. The 
present lease has been in effect since 1976, according to Mr. 
Chan, and in recent years the annual rent has consisted of 
the percentage of annual sales revenue. After-tax revenues 
of the Tea House and Gift Shop and the rent payments 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



received by the City during each of the last three fiscal years 
are shown below. Also shown are figures representing 38.5 
percent (under the proposed lease) of the after-tax revenues, 
to approximate the revenues which the City could receive 
under the terms of the proposed new lease: 



Year 

FY 1988-89 
FY 1989-90 
FY 1990-91 



After Tax 
Revenue 

$513,310 
514,310 
537,680 



Current Lease: 

30 Percent 

of Revenues 

$153^93 
154,293 
161,304 



Proposed Lease 

38.5 Percent 
of Revenues 

$197,624 
198,009 
207,007 



However, under the terms of the proposed lease, the City 
would receive a minimum annual payment of $280,000 rather 
than 38.5 percent of revenues, if revenues were similar to the 
historical information shown above. To receive 38.5 percent 
of revenues rather than the minimum payment of $280,000, 
the Tea House and Gift Shop would have to generate after-tax 
revenues of at least approximately $727,275 (38.5 percent of 
$727,725 is $280,001, which is higher than the minimum 
guaranteed payment of $280,000). 

It can also be seen that compared to the rent received of 
$161,304 in fiscal year 1990-91, a guaranteed minimum 
payment of $280,000 would generate an additional $118,696 in 
rent revenue from operations of the Tea House and Gift Shop 
alone. 



2. In addition to the annual rent received ($280,000 or 38.5 
percent of revenues) from operations of the Tea House and 
Gift Shop, the proposed lease stipulates that the Lessee would 
pay additional rent based on other sources of revenue 
associated with the leased premises. Specifically, the Lessee 
would remit 10 percent of the revenues generated by the gift 
shop located outside the Tea Garden at the tour bus ticket 
booth, and 40 percent of the parking fees collected at the tour 
bus parking lot, as described in Comments 3 and 4 below. 

3. Under the existing lease, there has been no sale of gift 
items at the tour bus parking lot ticket booth. Therefore, the 
revenue to be generated at this location cannot be estimated 
based on past sales. 

Mr. Chan states that the Lessee under the proposed lease 
requested permission to generate sales at this location in 
order to offset labor costs associated with operating the Tea 
House and Gift Shop. Examples of items to be sold at this 
location, according to the proposed lease, are key chains, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



hats, sunglasses, license plates, maps, brochures, post 
cards, calendars, tour books, photographic film, and similar 
items. 

Mr. Chan further indicates that a condition of the proposed 
lease is that the Lessee may not expand the ticket booth to 
accommodate the sale of gift items, nor set up tables or other 
sales displays at the parking lot. Mr. Chan states that this 
prohibition is contained in the provision of the proposed lease 
which states that the "Lessee understands and agrees that 
the sales [sic] of gift items shall be sold at the ticket booth." 

The Budget Analyst notes that the sale of gift items at the 
parking lot ticket booth could potentially reduce total sales at 
the Tea Garden Gift Shop, and result in decreased revenues 
to the City. This is because the City would receive 28.5 
percent more revenue from the sale of items at the Tea 
Garden Gift Shop than at the parking lot (38.5 percent of 
revenues rather than 10 percent, respectively). However, this 
potential revenue loss could only occur if the Gift Shop rent 
were calculated as 38.5 percent of Gift Shop revenues, rather 
than as the $280,000 minimum payment. 

4. As noted above, additional rent will also include 40 percent 
of the proceeds from parking operations at the tour bus 
parking lot. Mr. Chan indicates that until now the parking 
lot has been operated by the Recreation and Park 
Department. The operation has imposed salary costs to the 
City in fiscal years 1990-91 and 1991-92 as follows: 

Position: Annual Cost* 

3302 Vendor (@ $891 biweekly) $23,344 

Fringe benefits (@ 27 percent): 6.303 

Total: $29,647 

*Based on 26.2 biweekly pay periods in FY 1991-92. 

Mr. Chan indicates that revenues generated by the parking 
lot operation were approximately $34,000 in FY 1990-91, for 
net income to the City of approximately $4,353 ($34,000 in 
revenue less $29,647 in personnel costs). 

Under the proposed lease, the City would not incur costs of 
operating the parking lot, but would receive only 40 percent of 
the revenues generated. Based on the $34,000 generated by 
parking lot operations in FY 1990-91, the City may expect to 
receive $13,600 under the terms of the proposed lease (40 
percent of $34,000). This would be $9,247 more than the net 
amount which the City received by operating the parking lot 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

Ik 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



in FY 1990-91 ($13,600 estimated rental payment under the 
proposed lease less $4,353 net income in FY 1990-91). 

5. Below is a comparison of total annual rental payments 
under the existing lease and expected under the proposed 
lease, based on revenues generated by the Tea House and Gift 
Shop and the tour bus parking lot in FY 1990-91. Since gift 
items have never before been sold from the parking lot ticket 
booth, no estimate can be made of the sales and rental 
receipts resulting from this activity. Since the sale of gift 
items at this location is required to be very limited in scope, 
Mr. Chan does not expect the revenues to be substantial. 

Source of Revenue: Existing Lease: Proposed Lease: 

Tea House & Gift Shop $161^04 $280,000* 
Tour Bus Parking Lot 4,343 13,600 
Parking Lot Gift Shop Q ~ 

Total: $165,647 $293,600 

* Based on minimum payment. 

** Revenue estimates from this source are unavailable. 

The Budget Analyst therefore estimates that the proposed 
lease will generate at least $127,953 in additional annual 
revenue ($293,600 less $165,647), which is approximately 77 
percent more than the revenue generated by the existing 
lease. 

6. As previously noted, in addition to the rental payments, 
the Lessee under the proposed lease would pay a minimum of 
$43,400 for capital improvements to the Japanese Tea 
Garden. The improvements to be made are listed in an 
attachment to the proposed lease, but a complete list of 
estimated costs for these improvements is not provided. The 
improvements for which estimated costs are provided are the 
following: 

Improvement Estimated Cost 

Electrical and plumbing improvements $25,000* 

Wooden handicap ramp 3,000 

New steps at Tea House 4.400 

Total $32,400 

♦Estimated cost ranges from $10,000 to $25,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

75 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



Other improvements to be made are listed as follows: 

Tea House: 

Paint, apply oil, and replace awning; 
Replace wooden roof shingles as needed; 
Provide improved lighting as needed. 

Gift Shop: 

Replace wooden roof shingles as needed; 
Repair walls and wall covering; 
Change lighting and fixtures; 
Replace shelving and cashier counter; 
Repair flooring; 

Apply "appropriate treatment" such as 
linseed oil to exterior walls. 

Mr. Chan states that no estimate has been obtained for the 
cost of these additional improvements. However, he notes 
that the proposed lease requires improvements of at least 
$43,400, whereas the cost estimates so far provided total only 
$32,400. This leaves $11,000 in required improvements which 
can be applied to the items listed immediately above. 

Mr. Chan also states that the Lessee would be responsible for 
these improvements regardless of their actual cost. The 
proposed lease states that a minimum of $43,400 would be 
spent "to comply with [the] proposed improvements as 
delineated" in the attachment. If more than $43,400 were 
needed to make the improvements, Mr. Chan states that the 
Lessee would be required to expend more than the stated 
minimum of $43,400. 

Failure to make the necessary improvements would permit 
the City to reduce the term of the lease to one year. Mr. Chan 
has submitted an amended page 6 of the proposed lease, 
indicating that the proposed lease has been amended to 
reflect that the delineated improvements must be made 
within one year. Prior to this amendment, no deadline had 
been stipulated for these improvements. 

7. As previously noted, in addition to the capital 
improvements to be made as delineated in the proposed lease, 
the Lessee would remit $15,000 per year during the first 5 
years of the proposed lease and $35,000 annually during years 
6-10 of the proposed lease to an Improvement Fund for the 
Japanese Tea Garden, for total improvements of $250,000. 
Mr. Chan indicates that this Fund would be used by the 
Recreation and Park Department for additional maintenance 
activities at the Japanese Tea Garden, especially in those 
parts of the Tea Garden (outdoor landscapes and structures 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

76 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3 , 1992 



and the Tea Garden admission booth) which do not fall 
within the purview of the proposed lease. 



Recommendations: 1. Approve the proposed ordinance. 



2. Request the Recreation and Park Commission to submit 
the annual audits required under the proposed lease to the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SI TPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

77 



1 



o 


o 


o 


o 




o 


CD 




c 


c 


c 












O" 


o 


CDI 




o 


a 


CD 




in 


in 


LTJ 


CO 


CO 


in 


lD 




CNJ 


t«n 


cr 






TT 


^ P 




















i *-m 


V*J 


V* 


V* 


*fll 


V* 


«*l 





f— en 



mj in -— 



>i. 




lO 


in 






cc 


lO 


m 


n 



u 



























> > 








V. 


"«s 














I- 


t. 




L. 


<r^ 


c 


> > 




<r~. 


c 




V 


~» 








* 


w: 


i<: 


^r 


v. 


IT! 


m 


xr. 


c 


o 










CNJ 


CM 



c-3 ro 























cc 


cc 


























fT 








CN. 


c: 


o 


O 


P 


rr 




CI 


cm 


r*: 


rr 


m 



L. 

^. 
O 
C" 
CO 

in 

CD 

— 

4 vi 


> 
■s 

a 
a 

in 
o 

CM 
VI 


> 

in 
cr 


CM 

CM 
VI 


> 

o 

VI 


> 
tn 

CM 
VI 


> 
o 

C3 

in 

CM 

<T 

VI 



I— ~z 

< 2 



5 2 



5 2 



S 3 



S3 



k- o 

o • — 



78 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item 16 -File 64-92-7 



Department: 
Item: 

Lessor: 

Utilities and 
Janitorial Services 
Provided By: 

(1) Location: 



Real Estate Department 

Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution authorizing extension of one month-to-month 
rental agreement (see Location (1) below) and one lease of 
real property (see Location (2) below). 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law 



The University of California pays for gas, electricity, water, 
scavenger services, janitorial services and supplies. 

100 McAllister Street , Rooms 404, 405, 406, and 409 



Purpose of Lease: Office space for the PUC's Office of Safety and Health and the 
Manager, Bureau of Claims and Contracts. 

No.ofSq.Ftand 

Cost Per Month: 1,859 square feet @ $1.20/sq. ft./month = $2,223 rent/month 



Annual Cost: 



Not to exceed $26,676 



Percent Change from 

1991-92: 9 percent increase (from period July 1, 1991 - December 31, 

1991); percent increase (from period January 1, 1992 - June 

30, 1992) 

Term of Lease: This space is to be leased on a month-to-month basis 

commencing July 1, 1992, until terminated by either party 
upon thirty (30) days advance written notice, and not to 
exceed 12 months. 

Source of Funds: PUC 1992-93 Operating Budget 






(2) Location: 100 McAllister Street , Rooms 401, 402 and 403 

Purpose of Lease: Office space for the PUC's Bureau of Energy Conservation 

No.ofSq.Ftand 

Cost Per Month: 1,276 square feet @ $1.45/sq. ft./month = $1,850 rent month 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

79 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Annual Cost: 



$22,200 



Percent Increase Over 
1991-92: 3.57 percent 

Source of Funds: Hetch Hetchy Funds 

Term of Lease: July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993 



Comments: 1. Mr. Phil Aissen of the Real Estate Department reports that 

the lease of 100 McAllister Street, Rooms 404, 405, 406 and 409 
was originally established on a month-to-month basis 
because the Bureau of Claims and Contracts was considering 
moving to 1155 Market Street at the time the lease was 
originally signed. Mr. Walter Graze of the PUC reports that 
the Manager of the Bureau of Claims and Contracts left her 
position in 1991 and this position has since been eliminated. 
As a result, only the PUC's Office of Safety and Health staff 
has occupied Rooms 404, 405, 406 and 409. 

Mr. Graze further advises that the Office of Safety and Health 
is budgeted for a staff of nine in fiscal year 1992-93, but now 
has a staff of four due to the loss of two staff as a result of 
Proposition A (Early Retirement) and three other vacant 
positions. Mr. Carlos Jacobo of PUC advises that the Mayor's 
Budget Office has recommended that four Office of Health 
and Safety positions be cut for fiscal year 1992-93, which 
would leave only five remaining staff positions. 

In addition, the Budget Analyst has examined the office 
space of the Office of Safety and Health and determined that it 
is being significantly underutilized. For a staff of five 
persons, the office space of 1,859 square feet represents 
approximately 372 square feet per person, in contrast to the 
1,276 square feet of office space occupied by the Bureau of 
Energy Conservation, which represents approximately 160 
square feet per person for a staff of eight persons. Mr. Aissen 
advises that the guideline which the Real Estate Department 
uses for gauging the amount of office space needed is that 
each person requires between 150 and 175 square feet of 
space. 

Therefore, the Board of Supervisors should request that the 
Department of Real Estate renegotiate the month-to-month 
rental agreement so that only approximately 800 square feet 
of office space for the Office of Safety and Health (or 160 
square feet x 5 staff) is rented in fiscal year 1992-93. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

80 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

2. Mr. John Deakin reports that eight Bureau of Energy 
Conservation staff are budgeted for fiscal year 1992-93, and 
eight staff currently occupy office space in Rooms 401, 402 
and 403. Mr. Deakin advises that the Bureau of Energy 
Conservation staff is funded solely through Hetch Hetchy 
funds. 

3. The annual rent increases for the proposed two leases are 
pursuant to previously negotiated lease agreements, 
according to Mr. Aissen. 

4. The Real Estate Department reports that the proposed rent 
for both the month-to-month rental agreement and the lease 
of real property represents the fair market value at the time 
the original leases were negotiated. Mr. Aissen reports that 
the monthly rental rates are different for comparable office 
space in the same building because of the differences in the 
time periods during which the original agreements were 
signed. 

5. Mr. Aissen advises that these two lease agreements will 
expire after their final extensions in fiscal year 1992-93. Mr. 
John Deakin of the PUC's Bureau of Energy Conservation 
advises that the Bureau will meet with the Real Estate 
Department in February, 1993 and request that the Director of 
Property renegotiate another lease for Rooms 401, 402 and 403 
with the University of California with four one year options, 
effective July 1, 1993. At the time of the writing of this report, 
the PUC's Office of Safety and Health had not yet determined 
whether the Office would renegotiate another month-to- 
month rental agreement for Rooms 404, 405, 406 and 409 or 
seek office space elsewhere after the end of fiscal year 1992-93. 

Recommendation: Amend the proposed resolution to sever the authorization to 
extend the one month-to-month rental agreement from the 
one lease of real property. Request that the Real Estate 
Department renegotiate the month-to-month rental 
agreement to rent approximately 800 square feet of office 
space (Location 1). Approve the proposed resolution to 
authorize the extension of the lease of real property (for 
Location 2). 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

81 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 17 -File 97-92-31 

1. The proposed ordinance would add Section 8.33 to the City's 
Administrative Code, authorizing the County Clerk to increase fees otherwise set 
by State law to reflect the actual cost of providing certain records and services. 

2. State Government Code Sections 54985 through 54987 state that the 
County Clerk is authorized to charge fees to defray the actual cost of issuance of 
the following documents and provision of the following services, notwithstanding 
the fees otherwise set or limited by State law. The schedule of proposed fees is as 
follows: 



Projections of Cost-Recovery from Fees 



Item 


FY 1991-92 

Estimated 

Units of Service 


Present 
Fee 


FY 1991-92 
Estimated 
Revenues 


Proposed 
Fees 


Estimated 

Annual 

Income 

Based On 

Proposed 

Fees 


Estimated 

Additional 

Annual 

Income 


Fictitious business 
names (FBN) 


11,400 


$10 


$114,000 


$20 


$228,000 


$114,000 


FBN abandonments 
and withdrawals 


420 


$5 


2,100 


$13 


5,460 


3,360 


Additional FBN parties 


2,300 


$2 


4,600 


$5 


11£00 


6,900 


Notary bonds 


1,800 


$11 


19^00 


$21 


37,800 


18,000 


Marriage license (reg.) 


5,900 


$35 


206,500 


$60 


354,000 


147,500 


Confidential marriage 
certificate 


2,200 


$41 


90,200 


$60 


132,000 


41,800 


Copies of official records 


200,000 


$0.50 


100,000 


$0.75 


150,000 


50,000 


Marriage ceremonies 


3,000 


$15 


45,000 


$20 


60,000 


15,000 


Records file search 
(per year searched) 

a. Mail requests 

b. Counter service 


4,800 
1,300 


$1.75 
no fee 


8,400 



$4 
$4 


19,200 
5,200 


10,800 
5,200 


Power of Attorney 


400 


$3.50 


JL4QQ 


$iq 


4.000 


2M& 


Totals 


233,520 




$592,000 




$1,007,160 


$115,160 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

82 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

3. The current fees charged by the County Clerk are those stated in State 
Government Code Sections 54985 through 54987 and, according to the City 
Attorney's Office most of the fees have not been raised since 1979. 

Comments 

1. During FY 1990-91 the County Clerk commissioned Northern California 
Research Associates (NCRA), a private consulting firm, to complete a cost- 
recovery study of the County Clerk's fee structure. This study evaluated personnel 
costs, indirect costs, overhead, supervision, and equipment. The result was a 
deteirrunation that the current fees did not recapture, as allowed for by State law, 
all of the costs associated with providing non-judicial services to the public. The 
proposed fees would result in the full recovery of all of the County Clerk's costs of 
providing each specific service to the public. 

2. Included in the NCRA study was a survey of fees and charges for County 
Clerk services in seven other California counties. The seven counties included in 
the survey were Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, 
San Mateo, and Stanislaus. San Francisco's current fees and charges, on 
average, are the lowest of the eight counties. The proposed fees and charges would 
raise San Francisco to fourth when compared to the other surveyed counties. 

3. Ms. Barbara Soloman of the City Attorney's office states that the proposed 
fee increases would not be enacted until 30 days after the ordinance is signed by 
the Mayor. Because the Mayor could not sign the proposed ordinance before June 
16, 1992 (and, therefore, the proposed fees could not be increased before July 16, 
1992) the estimated revenues for FY 1992-93 could be slightly lower than estimated 
above. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed ordinance because the State Government Code 
permits charging the actual cost of providing certain records and services and the 
Superior Court has determined that the proposed increases would result in the 
recovery of all County costs for providing each specific service to the public. 



BOARD OF ST JPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

83 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 18 - File 198-92-1 

1. The proposed resolution would authorize an increase in the fees charged 
for investigations in conservatorship cases from $210 to $384 per case as provided 
by State Probate Code Section 1851.5. State Probate Section 1851.5 authorizes the 
Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco to order conservatee 
estates to reimburse the County for the cost of investigations. 

2. Court investigators conduct thorough reviews of conservatorship cases to 
determine (a) if individuals should have their estates managed by a Court- 
appointed conservator, (b) who should serve as conservator, and (c) to evaluate 
annually whether appointed conservators are serving the interests of 
conservatees. 

3. The Superior Court has conducted an analysis of the actual cost in Fiscal 
Year 1991-92 of conducting conservatorship investigations, which are shown 
below: 

Personnel $394,329 

Administrative Costs 33,693 

Professional & Contractual Services 17.176 

Total $445,198 

Cost of All Investigations = Investigation Cost 

Investigations Completed in FY 1990-91 Per Unit 

$445.198 = $384 Cost Per Investigation 
1,158 

4. Ms. Kate Harrison of the Superior Court reports that the Superior Court 
collects fees for approximately 60 percent of investigated conservatorship cases. 
Therefore, the fee increase of $174 (or 83 percent) from $210 to $384 per case, based 
on FY 1990-91 activity levels of 695 collected cases (1,158 cases x 60 percent), would 
result in additional estimated annual revenues of $120,930 (695 x $174). These fees 
are paid from proceeds of the Conservatees' estates. 

5. Ms. Barbara Soloman of the City Attorney's Office states that the 
proposed increase in conservatorship investigation fees would occur 30 days after 
the resolution is signed by the Mayor. Because the Mayor could not sign the 
resolution before June 9, 1992 (and, therefore, the investigation fees would not be 
increased before July 9, 1992), the estimated revenues for FY 1992-93 could be 
slightly reduced. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed resolution because the State Probate Code permits charging 
the actual cost of investigating conservatorship cases and the Superior Court lias 
determined that the proposed fee increase would result in the full recovery of all 
County costs for conducting conservatorship investigations. 



8 A 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 19 - File 168-92-2 

1. The proposed resolution would indicate the Board of Supervisors 
concurrence with the joint recommendations of the Recreation and Park 
Commission and the City Planning Commission concerning expenditure of the 
fiscal year 1992-93 Open Space Acquisition and Park Renovation Fund, with the 
reservation by the Board of Supervisors to approve or disapprove any specific 
acquisitions as provided in the 1992-93 Open Space Budget. 

2. Under the provisions of Section 6.413 of the Charter, an annual tax of 2.5 
cents per hundred dollars of assessed property valuation is imposed for the Open 
Space Fund for a period of fifteen years. Fiscal year 1989-90 constituted the 
fifteenth and last year of this program, which began in 1974. However, in 
November of 1988, San Francisco voters approved Proposition E which extended 
the Open Space Acquisition and Park Renovation Fund an additional fifteen years 
beginning July 1, 1990. Monies for this Fund come from the 2.5 cent property tax 
rate. Not more than 40 percent of the Fund can be used for maintenance of 
properties previously acquired. The remaining money in the Fund is spent as 
follows: (1) at least 40 percent for acquiring and developing property; (2) at least 15 
percent for renovation; (3) not more than 25 percent for maintaining property and 
recreational facilities acquired after FY 1990-91, for programs other than for 
After-School Recreation programs, and for administration; and (4) at least 20 
percent for After-School Recreation programs. 

3. The table below shows property tax revenues (plus interest) that have 
accrued to the Open Space Fund. 



Fiscal Yea 


r Open Space Revenue! 


1975-76 


$2,637,972 


1976-77 


3,029,297 


1977-78 


3,414,149 


1978-79 


3,032,083 


1979-80 


1,900,000 


1980-81 


4,879,215 


1981-82 


5,353,834 


1982-83 


6,098,608 


1983-84 


6,810,960 


1984-85 


7,404,364 


1985-86 


8,572,212 


1986-87 


9,261,331 


1987-88 


10,091,185 


1988-89 


14,342,299 


1989-90 


14,834,937 


1990-91 


14,429,929 


1991-92 


15,293,750 


1992-93 


16.000.000 * 


Total 


$147,386,125 


t 


* Budgeted 




BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 




BUDGET ANALYST 




85 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

The Recreation and Park Department estimates that unappropriated revenues in 
the Open Space Fund will total $357,000 as of June 30, 1993. According to Mr. Phil 
Arnold of the Recreation and Park Department (RPD), the unappropriated 
revenues consist primarily of interest from prior years. 

4. The Recreation and Park Department's proposed 1992-93 budget includes 
the following expenditures from the Open Space Fund (see attachment for budget 
details): 



Total Park and Open Space Fund 

Maintenance of Previously 
Acquired and Developed Properties 

Remainder of Fund 
Acquisition and Development of 
Property 

Renovation 

Administration 

After-School Program 

Total allocation of 1992-93 projected 
revenues 

*The allocation for the 1992-93 Open Space program is approximately $16 
million. In addition, a one-time allocation of $1.5 million is available from 
interest accrued from previous years for a total budget of $17.5 million. 

** With the exception of the After School Program, each category percentage 
of the total expenditure is based on the 17.5 million total budget. The After School 
Program percentage is based on the $16 million figure because the interest 
accrued came from years prior to the establishment of this program. 



Percent of 
Amount Total Fund 


Percentage of 

Remainder 

of Fund 


$17,500,000 * 


100.0% 




6.400.000 


37.0 




11,100,000 


64.0 




7,010,000 


40.0 


63.15% 


1,590,000 


9.0 


14.32 


600,000 


3.0 


5.41 


1.900.000 


12.0** 


17,11 


I 
$11,100,000 


64.0 


100.0 



BOARD OF SI TPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

86 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Comment^ 

1. As noted above, based on information outlined in the spending plan for 
the total Program Budget of $17,500,000, the percentage of the Fund proceeds to be 
expended for acquisition and development of property (at least 40 percent of the 
Remainder of the Fund) in 1992-93 conforms to Charter provisions. However, the 
percentage of the Fund proceeds to be expended for Renovation (at least 15 percent 
of Reminder of the Fund and for the After-School Program (at least 20 percent of 
the Remainder of the Fund) do not conform to Charter provisions. 

2. As noted above, not more than 25 percent of the remaining funds can be 
allocated for (1) maintaining property and recreational facilities acquired after FY 
1990-91, (2) for programs other than After-School programs, and (3) for 
administration. The RPD has budgeted $600,000 (3.0 percent of the total fund) for 
administration purposes and $120,000 for a transportation program aimed at 
providing free transportation to youths and seniors to the City's recreational 
facilities (funds are included in the Acquisition and Development of Property 
category). The RPD is not specifically required to allocate funds to all three 
programs. The RPD has not allocated funds for maintenance of recreational 
facilities acquired after FY 1990-91 because it is anticipated that any properties 
acquired by RPD after 1990-91 will not require maintenance in 1992-93. Thus far, 
the RPD has acquired only one Open Space property since 1990-91, which is 
undeveloped land that would not require maintenance. 

3. Mr. Arnold reports that contrary to the information provided in the 1992- 
93 spending plan submitted to the Board of Supervisors, $1.5 million of the total 
$17.5 million represents a one-time only allocation of prior-year funds which is 
separate from the $16,000,000 allocated for the 1992-93 program. As such, 
according to Mr. Arnold, the allocation formula as mandated by Proposition E 
should be applied to the $16,000,000 allocation only. Based on the $16,000,000 
allocation, the Recreation and Park Department's 1992-93 amended allocation 
would include the following expenditures from the Open Space Fund: 

Percentage of 
Percent of Remainder 
Amount Total Fund of Fund 

Total Park and Open Space Fund $16,000,000 100.0% 

Maintenance of Previously 

Acquired and Developed Properties 6.400.000 40.0 

Remainder of Fund 9,600,000 60.0 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Percent of 
Amount Total Fund 


Percentage of 

Remainder 

of Fund 


$5,510,000 


34.4 


57.4% 


1,590,000 


9.9 


16.6 


600,000 


3.7 


6.2 


1.900.000 


12.0 


19,8* 


$9,600,000 


60.0 


100.0 



Acquisition and Development of 
Property 

Renovation 

Administration 

After-School Program 

Total allocation of 1992-93 projected 
revenues 

*Rounded up equals 20 percent. 

4. Mr. Arnold advises that the 1992-93 spending plan will be modified to 
reflect the above noted expenditures based on $16,000,000 and that a copy of the 
modified plan will be included in the file. The modified spending plan would 
concur with the provisions of Proposition E. According to Mr. Arnold, such a 
modification does not require approval by the Recreation and Park Commission. 

5. The proposed resolution provides that the Board of Supervisors 
concurrence is made with the joint recommendations of the Recreation and Park 
Commission and the City Planning Commission concerning proposed 1992-93 
Open Space expenditures, with the reservation that the Board of Supervisors may 
approve or disapprove any specific acquisitions for which funding might be 
provided in the 1992-93 Open Space budget. 

Recommendation 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SI TPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 






Attachment 
Page 1 of 2 



A. AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM $ 1,900,000 (12 ?.) 

After school programs have been established at the following sites: 

Alamo School Yard, Aptos Middle School Gym, Alvarado School Yard, Luther 
Burbank, Ouboce Park, Sir Francis Orake, Francisco, Francisco Middle, Bre: 
Harte, Hawthorne, Hi Merest Schoolyard, Guadalupe School Yard, Lafayette 
School Yard, Hillcrest, Horace Mann, Jefferson, Marshall, Larsen, Jean Parke- 
Lawton, George Peabody, Lincoln, Plaza East, Monroe, Redding, Jose Ortega. 
Roosevelt, Ping Yuen, Paul Revere, Spring Valley, Junipero Serra, Starr < ; ng 
Sutter Playground, Visitacion Valley Gym, Commodore Stockton, Visitacion 
Valley School Yard and Raphael Weill. 



B. ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT 57,010,000 (40%) 

The following is a list of projects recommended for funding in 1992 - 
1993. A more detailed description of the scope of each project, along wi:h a 
list of projects that were proposed but not funded, can be found in the 
Project Request Summary starting on page 5. 

Washington-Hyde Park S 250,000 

Chinatown Park 750,000 

St. Mary' s Park 500.000 

Tenderloin Rec Center 900,000 

Richmond Rec Center 690,000 

South of Market Park 300,000 

Natural Areas Acquisition 1,615,000* 

Mission District Park Acquisition 750,000 

2460 Harrison 135,000 

Real Estate Department 100,000 

City Attorney 100,000 

Community Gardens 50,000 

Transportation Program 120,000 

Neighborhood Reforestation 250,000 

Total Acquisition and Development $ 7,010,000 

"The Committee voted to recommend the designation of Hawk Hill, 0' Shaughnessy 
Hollow and portions of Bayview Hill as Significant Natural Areas. 



89 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 2 



C. RENOVATION: 



$1 ,590,000 (97.) 



AliotoMini Park (design) 

Bernal Heights Gym 

Chinese Playground 

Fencing 

Folsom Playground 

Disabled Access 

Hayes Val ley Clubhouse 

Hazardous Materials Abatement 

Japanese Peace Plaza 

Security Lighting 

Potrero Hi 1 1 Rec Center 

Randall Museum 

Twin Peaks Regional Trail 

West Portal Playground 

GGP Panhandle Playground 

GGP Bandshell 

Visitacion Valley Clubhouse 



30,000 

150,000 

100,000 

80,000 

450,000 

50,000 

50,000 

60,000 

50,000 

80,000 

100,000 

20,000 

100,000 

100.000 

50,000 

20,000 

100,000 



D. PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATION 



$600,000 (37.) 



Salaries 

Fringe Benefits 

Contractual Services 

Auto Mi leage 

Telephone 

Suppl ies 

Equipment 

Services to Other City Depts 

Total Administration 



I 299,916 

72,384 

189,000 

1,000 

6,100 

4,100 

5,000 

22,500 

$ 600,000 



MAINTENANCE OF PREVIOUSLY ACQUIRED OPEN SPACE $6,400,000 (377.) 



Salaries 

Hoi iday Pay 

Temp Salaries 

Fringes 

Standardization 

Auto Mi leage 

Contractual Services 

Telephone 

Suppl ies 

Equi pment 

Workers Compensation 

Total Maintenance 



$4,207,645 
8,362 
117, 
1,121, 



370 
121 



440,517 
2,500 

146,280 
9,200 

144,800 

120,450 
81,755 



$6,400,000 



90 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Item 20 - File 245-92-1 



Department 
Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Controller 

Ordinance creating and authorizing expenditure of monies 
in Employees' Salary-Waiver/Gift Fund, providing for 
nondisclosure of identify of donors and findings. 

Unknown, depending on the amount contributed by City 
officers and employees (see Comment No. 5). 

Employee contributions through waiver or donation of 
portions of their salaries for fiscal year 1992-93. 

City officers and employees are currently authorized to waive 
or make a gift to the City of all or part of their wages. The 
proposed ordinance would appropriate the wages that are 
donated by the employee after they are paid, or the amounts 
equal to wages that would have been paid if not for the 
waiver, provided that the officer or employee does not 
designate the purpose for which donated wages may be 
expended. Except where the employee specifies the purpose 
of the salary contribution, the proposed ordinance would 
appropriate the donated or waived wages for the operation of 
the department where the employee's services were 
performed. 

The proposed ordinance also creates a special fund for receipt 
of these waivers and donations, authorizes the Controller to 
accept such waived or donated wages on behalf of the City, 
directs the Controller to prepare information and forms 
which may be necessary to inform and enable employees to 
make such donations, and provides that the Controller shall 
maintain the confidentiality of all information concerning 
the identity of those employees who contribute their wages 
and the amounts of their donations. 



Comment: 



1. According to the City Attorney, officers and employees of 
the City are currently authorized to waive or donate to the 
City all or part of their wages. The proposed ordinance would 
create a special fund, the Employees' Salary-Waiver/Gift 
Fund, for receipt of such donation and waiver contributions. 

2. According to a May 14, 1992 memorandum prepared by the 
Controller and issued through the Office of the Mayor and the 
Board of Supervisors, employees were asked to waive all or 
part of their salary increase for fiscal year 1992-93, or to 
receive the salary increase and then to donate some portion of 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

91 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



their salary back to the City. The memorandum points out 
important differences in the treatment of waivers and 
donations. 

Waivers of portions of an employee's salary are described as 
being generally exempt from income tax liability, since the 
portion of the salary which is waived would not be included in 
the employee's gross annual income and therefore would not 
appear on his or her Form W-2. However, the Controller 
advises any employee to consult with a tax expert regarding 
his or her particular circumstances. Portions of an 
employee's salary which are waived will not be included in 
the City's calculation of the employee's retirement and death 
benefits, although the Controller states that "the retirement 
calculation is only of importance if this year [1992-93] will be 
used in calculating your retirement pension." The 
Controller also notes that, "due to IRS rules," the employee 
cannot designate how the funds will be spent if the 
contribution results from a waiver. The proposed ordinance 
would appropriate contributions received through an 
employee waiver to the Department in which the employee's 
services were performed. 

Donations contributed by an employee after the salary has 
been paid to the employee are subject to income taxes, using 
standard withholding formulae, but they may be made as 
lump sum payments or as payroll deductions. According to 
the Controller, the Charter requires that donations be used 
only for the purposes specified by the donor. Employees are 
therefore permitted to designate the General Fund, their own 
department, or a specific program as the recipient of their 
donation. The proposed ordinance would appropriate any 
donations to the Department in which the employee's 
services were performed, unless the donor designates a 
specific purpose. Donations contributed after the salary is 
paid to the employee will have no effect on the calculation of 
retirement or death benefits, according to the Controller. 

3. The Controller's memorandum also indicates that in the 
case of salary waivers, a distinction exists between salaries 
paid from the General Fund or from some other source. The 
Controller indicates that if the salary is paid from the 
General Fund, a waiver would result in full savings by the 
City of the amount waived. However, if the salary is funded 
from a source which reimburses the City only for actual 
expenditures, a waiver could cause the grantor of the funds 
to retain these funds, because there would be no salary 
expenditure for the amount waived. Therefore, the employee 
would need to accept the salary and make a donation in order 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

92 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



for the City to benefit from the employee's action, according to 
the Controller. 

4. The Controller has prepared a Waiver Form and a 
Donation Form to be used by employees wishing to waive or 
donate part of their salaries for fiscal year 1992-93, and 
indicates that the information required for either type of 
contribution must be provided to the Controller's Office no 
later than June 15, 1992. Mr. John Madden of the 
Controller's Office indicates that the memorandum was 
distributed to department heads and senior staff in mid-May. 

5. Mr. Madden indicates that estimated revenues associated 
with the Salary- Waiver/Gift Fund have not been included in 
the Mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 1992-93, since it is 
not yet possible to ascertain the amount of revenue which will 
be generated through employee salary waivers or donations. 
Mr. Madden states that estimates of these revenues can be 
added during budget hearings (since they will result in a net 
reduction of the budget), subsequent to the June 15 deadline 
for submission of employee Waiver or Donation Forms to the 
Controller's Office and the tabulation of these forms by the 
Controller's Office. Mr. Madden states that the June 15 
deadline was established in order to permit these 
calculations to be included in the City's final 1992-93 budget. 
Therefore, the appropriation of these funds by the Board of 
Supervisors will occur when the final 1992-93 budget is 
adopted, according to Mr. Madden. 

6. Controller Ed Harrington states that the salary waiver and 
gift funds which would be appropriated to the Departments by 
the proposed ordinance are expected to offset the higher levels 
of departmental salary savings budgeted for fiscal year 1992- 
93. To the extent that waived or donated salary contributions 
are thereby "saved" by each Department, other salary savings 
budgeted for 1992-93 would not have to be imposed. Thus, the 
funds would assist the Departments in meeting their budget 
targets, and would not result in additional revenues which 
the Departments could expend at their discretion. Mr. 
Harrington states that any use of the monies by the 
Departments other than to offset salary savings, as budgeted 
for 1992-93, would require the prior approval of the Board of 
Supervisors through a specific appropriation request. 

The Budget Analyst believes that the proposed legislation 
may limit the Board of Supervisor's authority to appropriate 
these funds at a later date. The proposed ordinance states 
that the purpose and effect of the proposed legislation would 
be to appropriate salary waivers and donations to the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

93 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Recommendation: 



Department of the employee making the waiver or donation. 
Such an appropriation is therefore distinct from the 
appropriations made to Departments by the Board of 
Supervisors during budget hearings or upon the specific 
request of a Department through a supplemental 
appropriation. The proposed ordinance instead would 
appropriate funds, the amounts of which have not yet been 
ascertained, prior to budget hearings or departmental 
appropriation requests, and without a separate review by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends that the proposed 
ordinance be amended so that it would not appropriate funds, 
but would only designate that funds will be used for the 
benefit of the Department of the employee making the waiver 
or the donation. For instance, if an employee of the Public 
Library waived part of her salary, the proposed ordinance 
would ensure that these funds would be appropriated to the 
Public Library. However, the actual appropriation of the 
funds to the Public Library for the specific use should occur 
during budget hearings or by subsequent action of the Board 
of Supervisors. 

7. Mr. Madden advises that some waivers and donations of 
employee salaries have been made in prior years, primarily 
through the Office of the Mayor, but that no figures are 
available to indicate the amount of such waivers or donations 
which were made in prior years. 

1. Amend the proposed ordinance on page 1, lines 17-21 as 
follows: 



Where it now reads: 

"It is the purpose of this ordinance to appropriate wages that 
would have been paid but for a waiver, and to appropriate 
wages donated to the City by its officers and employees, except 
where an officer or employee has designated the purpose for 
which donated wages may be expended." 

Substitute: 

"It is the purpose of this ordinance to specify that wages that 
would have been paid but for a waiver, and to appropriat e 
wages donated to the City by its officers and employees, shall 
be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors, except where an 
officer or employee has designated the purpose for which 
donated wages may be expended." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

94 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



2. Amend the proposed ordinance on page 2, lines 5-7, as 
follows: 

Where it now reads: 

"... all donated and waived wages deposited in this fund are 
appropriated and shall be expended for the operation of the 
department in which the services generating the waived or 
donated wages were rendered." 

Substitute: 

"... all donated and waived wages deposited in this fund shall 

be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors and expended for 

the operation of the department in which the services 
generating the waived or donated wages were rendered." 

3. Approval of the proposed ordinance is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

95 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Items 21 and 22 - File 121-92-2 and 121-92-2.1 

Note: These items were transferred from the City Services Committee meeting of 
May 5, 1992 as they were determined to have a fiscal impact. 

1. The proposed ordinance (File 121-92-2) would amend the San Francisco 
Administrative Code by amending Chapter 4 thereof by adding Section 4.20 thereto 
to prohibit advertising of tobacco products on City-owned property or under the 
control of the City. The proposed ordinance (File 121-92-2) would apply to all 
leases, permits or agreements awarded by the City. There are also existing 
leases, permits and contracts in which the City has authorized advertising that 
could include the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco products. The proposed 
ordinance (File 121-92-2) may not be immediately effective in regulating activities 
under these current leases, agreements and permits if the prohibition of 
advertising of cigarette and tobacco results in the City not fulfilling its contractual 
obligations. 

2. The proposed companion resolution (File 121-92-2.1) would urge the 
Mayor to request all City boards, commissions, and departments to request 
individuals and entities currently enjoying advertising rights on City property to 
stop advertising cigarettes and tobacco products and to renegotiate leases, permits 
and agreements to ban advertising of tobacco and cigarette products. The 
proposed resolution (File 121-92-2.1) would also find that the Board of Supervisors 
has adopted the proposed companion ordinance (File 121-92-2) to ban advertising 
of cigarettes and tobacco products on City-owned properties. 

3. Ms. Alyonik Hrushow of the Department of Public Health's (DPH) 
Tobacco Control Project reports that the major City properties, which contain 
tobacco advertising, are Candlestick Park, and transit-related advertising done on 
transit shelters. 

4. A memo from Mr. Phil Arnold of the Recreation and Park Department to 
the Recreation and Park Commission, dated April 29, 1991, indicated that at 
Candlestick Park there are six advertising panels, including the large one on the 
scoreboard, which advertise cigarettes. Mr. Arnold wrote that Philip Morris 
(Marlboro) pays an annual fee of $250,000 for these signs, and the City receives 65 
percent of this fee, or $162,500 annually. Mr. Jim Moran of Professional Sports 
Marketing, the City's agent for advertising at Candlestick Park, indicated that 
because of Federal requirements which prohibit tobacco companies from direct 
advertising on television, it would be difficult to market the scoreboard space to 
another client for an annual fee equal to Philip Morris' fee. In addition, Mr. Tim 
Lillyquist of the Recreation and Park Department reports that the City also 
receives revenues from various events held at Candlestick Park which arc 
sponsored by tobacco companies, (e.g. soccer matches) where temporary tobacco 
advertising is displayed. For example, Mr. Lillyquist notes that one tobacco 
company-sponsored sporting event, the "Mickey Thompson Event" during FY 
1990-91, generated approximately $30,000 in revenues for the Candlestick Park 
Fund. 



HOAR!) OF ST TPKRVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

96 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

5. The Recreation and Park Commission approved a resolution in May, 
1991 which restricts tobacco advertising at Candlestick Park. However, this 
resolution does not affect existing tobacco advertising contracts at Candlestick 
Park. The existing contract between Professional Sports Marketing, the City's 
agent for advertising at Candlestick Park, and Philip Morris expires on January 
15, 1998. Therefore, this Recreation and Park Commission imposed restriction 
would not begin until 1998. In addition, temporary cigarette advertising, such as 
for soccer matches, would not be restricted by this resolution passed by the 
Recreation and Park Commission. Temporary advertising at these events are 
subject to approval of the Commission on a case-by-case basis. However, as 
previously noted, the Board of Supervisors' proposed resolution (File 121-92-2.1) 
would urge the Mayor to urge the Recreation and Park Commission and 
Department to renegotiate their existing leases, permits and agreements and 
urge the Commission and Department to stop any future cigarette or tobacco 
product advertising. 

6. The Public Utilities Commission's (PUC) existing transit advertising 
agreement on MUNI buses, with Transportation Displays Incorporated (TDI) 
already provides that the "Contractor agrees not to accept any material for transit 
advertising... promoting the use of tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars 
and chewing tobacco, or liquor, including beer, wine and spirits." Therefore, 
there would be no revenues lost by the City from banning such advertising. The 
City will receive a minimum annual payment of approximately $1.7 million from 
TDI under the existing advertising contract with TDI in FY 1991-92. However, the 
minimum annual payment for FY 1992-93 reduces to $1.55 million, a reduction of 
$150,000. Mr. Jerry Levine of the PUC reports that this decrease is to allow TDI to 
recoup any revenue losses from the previously agreed upon ban on cigarette and 
alcohol advertising. The minimum annual payment for FY 1993-94 resumes to 
approximately $1.7 million, and escalates annually thereafter for inflation. This 
contract began on July 1, 1991 and expires on June 30, 1996. 

7. As specified in the PUC's existing transit shelter agreement with 
Gannett Outdoor Company, Inc. of Northern California, there are approximately 
1,000 transit shelters in the City, approximately 650 of which are designated as 
commercial transit shelters for advertising purposes, the remaining approximate 
350 shelters are designated for non-commercial proposes. Under this contract, 
"the advertising transit shelters shall be the property of the contractor (Gannett)." 
The transit shelter agreement does provide that Gannett "agrees to remove 
promptly, upon written demand by the General Manager (PUC), any 
advertisement deemed to be objectionable, on the stated grounds which shall be 
reasonable." However, Mr. Jim Lowe of the PUC reports that the intent of this 
clause is to enable the City to require Gannett to remove individual 
advertisements which may be viewed as offensive. According to Mr. Lowe, this 
clause probably would not apply to the City requiring a ban on tobacco advertising 
unless there were individual ads which the City deemed objectionable. Therefore, 
the existing contract does not specifically prohibit tobacco product advertisements 
on transit shelters. The transit shelter agreement expires in 2002. Mr. Lewis 
Lillian of the Gannett Transit Shelter Company (Gannett Outdoor Company, Inc. 
of Northern California) reports that under the existing transit shelter agreement, 

BOARD OF ST TPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

the City currently receives a minimum annual payment from Gannett from all 
transit shelter advertising of approximately $175,000. In addition, Gannet pays 
the City $50,000 annually for the Market Street Arts Maintenance Fund for the 
maintenance and restoration of public art on Market Street. 

8. In a memo dated February 19, 1992 from Mr. Lillian to the City Services 
Co mmi ttee, Mr. Lillian indicated that as part of the transit shelter agreement, 
Gannett has installed the 1,000 transit shelters within the City at an estimated 
cost of approximately $10 million, and an annual maintenance cost of 
approximately $1 million. Mr. Lillian stated that "Gannett entered this (transit 
shelter) contract specifically relying on the availability of revenues from tobacco 
and alcohol advertisers." In addition, Mr. Lillian stated that Gannett has 
voluntarily eliminated all tobacco and alcohol advertising within 500 feet from 
schools, hospitals, churches, playgrounds and public meeting places. Based 
upon information provided by MUNI, this voluntary elimination of all tobacco and 
alcohol advertising by Gannett applies to 206 of the approximate 650 transit 
shelters (approximately 32 percent) designated as commercial advertising 
shelters for advertising purposes. 

9. As noted, the proposed ordinance (File 121-92-2) would prohibit 
advertising of tobacco products on City-owned property or under the control of the 
City, however, the transit shelters are the property of Gannett. According to Ms. 
Barbara Solomon of the City Attorney's Office, because these shelters are located 
on public sidewalks, the proposed ordinance (File 121-92-2) and the proposed 
resolution (File 121-92-2.1) would apply to the advertising transit shelters, even 
though the transit shelters are owned by Gannett. The existing contract with 
Gannett authorizes advertising that could specifically include the advertising of 
cigarettes and tobacco products, and therefore, the proposed ordinance (File 121- 
92-2) would not apply to the existing contract because it would result in the City 
not fulfilling its contractual obligations, but rather it would apply to future transit 
shelter agreements. However, the proposed resolution (File 121-92-2.1) would 
urge the Mayor to request the Public Utilities Commission to request individuals 
and entities currently enjoying advertising rights on City property to stop 
advertising cigarettes and tobacco products. Therefore, the proposed resolution 
(File 121-92-2.1) would urge the Mayor to request the Public Utilities Commission 
to attempt to renegotiate the existing transit shelter agreement with Gannett to 
ban advertising of tobacco and cigarette products. 

10. As noted, Gannett reportedly entered this contract specifically relying 
on the availability of revenues from tobacco and alcohol advertisers. In addition, 
Mr. Lillian stated that "the City has already received the major part of its 
consideration for this contract" by Gannett providing the City with the installation 
of 1,000 transit shelters, and "there are no foreseeable advertisers available to 
make up the revenues currently obtained from tobacco and alcohol advertisers." 
Mr. Lillian estimates that Gannett receives approximately $860,000 annually in 
revenues from tobacco advertising. For these reasons, Mr. Lillian anticipates 
that litigation would result if the City attempts to ban cigarette advertising under 
the existing transit shelter agreement. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

98 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

11. Ms. Hrushow reports that 90 percent of all new smokers are children 
and adolescents. Ms. Hrushow also reports that tobacco advertising is effective in 
recruiting children and adolescents to smoke whether or not intentionally. 
According to Ms. Hrushow, as reported in the Journal of the American Medical 
Association (JAMA) in December, 1991, the "Old Joe Camel" advertising 
campaign increased the proportion of illegal minors purchasing Camels from 
0.5% to 32.8% in just three years. The revenues lost to the City due to the banning 
of tobacco advertising may be offset by the benefit of preventing some initiation of 
smoking behavior by youth. Based on data provided by the California Department 
of Health Services, Ms. Hrushow estimates that if the number of smokers in San 
Francisco decreased by one percent or by 1,712 estimated smokers (estimated total 
of 171,230 smokers in San Francisco), a total estimated cost savings of $2,347,152 
would result ($1,371 annual average cost per smoker). This estimated savings 
assumes there would be reduced costs associated with medical care, loss of 
productivity due to illness, disability and death, and represents the total estimated 
cost savings and not only those costs which the City would incur. 

12. On May 5, 1992, the City Services Committee approved the proposed 
ordinance (File 121-92-2) and resolution (File 121-92-2.1). 

T^fM ^nmm endation 

Approval of the proposed ordinance (File 121-92-2) and the proposed 
resolution (File 121-92-2.1) are policy matters for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SI JPERVTSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

99 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 23 - File 170-92-4 



Note: This item is presently being revised by the Budget Analyst 



Proposed Action: 



Amount: 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would determine and declare that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction, or reconstruction by the City and County of the 
following municipal improvements, to wit: to provide loans or 
grants for the seismic strengthening of Unreinforced 
Masonry Buildings (UMBs) for affordable housing and 
market-rate residential and commercial purposes; that the 
estimated cost of $350 million for said municipal 
improvement is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and County 
and will require the incurring of bonded indebtedness; 
provided, however, that no more than $45 million of this 
authorization shall be sold in any one fiscal year. 

$350 million 

The State of California has enacted legislation that requires 
all localities to identify UMBs and to establish a program to 
mitigate the hazards of UMBs resulting from a major 
earthquake. The State will not reimburse the City for the 
costs of the program. Ms. Judy Boyajian of the City 
Attorney's Office reports that, according to State law, should 
the City not implement a seismic strengthening program by 
January 1, 1993, the City would then be precluded from 
implementing any such seismic strengthening program for 
commercial UMBs that is less restrictive than State-imposed 
requirements. The State law does not apply to retrofits of 
residential UMBs. 

To address the hazards of UMBs, a Task Force on 
Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, appointed by the Chief 
Administrative Officer (CAO), has been meeting regularly 
for the past five years to develop a seismic strengthening 
program for UMBs. The activities of the Task Force have 
resulted in a proposed Seismic Strengthening Program, as 
described below. The goals of the Seismic Strengthening 
Program are to retrofit the maximum number of UMBs in 
order to protect lives and to preserve affordable housing, jobs, 
neighborhood characters, and historically significant 
buildings. 

The City's proposed Seismic Strengthening Program is 
delineated in proposed new sections for the City's Building 
Code. The proposed Chapter 14, titled "Earthquake Hazard 
Reduction in Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Buildings," covers the scope of the proposed UMB Program, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

100 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



general compliance requirements, and the administration of 
the Program. The proposed new Chapter 15, titled "Seismic 
Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing 
Wall Building," contains the technical requirements for 
seismic strengthening of unreinforced masonry bearing wall 
buildings. 

The major general provisions of the proposed UMB Program 
are as follows: 

a. Residential unreinforced masonry buildings containing 
less than five dwelling units or guest rooms and used solely 
for residential purposes would be exempted from the UMB 
Program. 

b. The Superintendent of the Bureau of Building Inspection 
would be required to issue an order to the owner of each 
building within the scope of the UMB Program to initiate 
UMB retrofit actions. The order would contain a copy of the 
proposed Chapters 14 and 15 of the Building Code, a 
commentary on these chapters, a sample inventory form and 
an engineering report summary form. The owner or the 
owner's agent may appeal the Superintendent's order to the 
Board of Examiners. 

c. The owners of UMBs in receipt of the Superintendent's 
order would be required to have a structural analysis of the 
UMB performed, and if the building does not meet the 
minimum standards specified in the Building Code, except 
as provided for in the proposed UMB Program, the owner 
must have the building structurally altered to conform to 
such standards or have the building demolished. The results 
of the structural analysis, complemented by an inventory 
form, a risk assessment, and an engineering report that 
details applicable retrofit requirements, all within specified 
time limits that are dependent on the UMB's assigned level of 
risk, would be submitted to the Bureau of Building 
Inspection. 

d. This proposed legislation does not require alteration of 
existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or 
life-safety systems that are in compliance with the respective 
codes in effect at the time of their original legally permitted 
construction or installation. 

e. Section 1509(b), which would be a part of the newly created 
Chapter 15 of the San Francisco Building Code, describes the 
minimum standards to be applied to UMB structures. 
Buildings with sufficient mortar strength and crosswalls 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

101 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



may upgrade to a "Bolts Plus" 1 level if other described 
weaknesses are addressed. Assembly, educational and 
institutional buildings, those with rigid floor systems, those 
over six stories tall (Building Code occupancy classifications 
A, E and I), and those with remaining deficiencies, must 
upgrade to Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) 
standards. 2 Retrofit beyond the level described in Section 
104(f) of the existing San Francisco Building Code will not be 
required. 

f. The implementation of the proposed Seismic 
Strengthening Program is conditioned upon the City's voters 
passing a proposed $350 million General Obligation, which 
would be used to partially mitigate the cost of the seismic 
strengthening work. All seismic upgrading would be 
required to be completed within 13 years of passage of this 
$350 million General Obligation bond proposal. 

The Task Force estimates that the cost of retrofitting the 
City's approximately 2,000 UMBs to make them seismically 
safe is $450 million. According to Mr. David Prowler of the 
CAO's Office, an estimated 78 of the approximately 2,000 
UMBs would not be subject to the provisions of the seismic 
strengthening program because they are residential UMBs 
containing less than five units. Although the estimated cost 
is $450 million, this proposed legislation would only provide 
financing for $350,000. 

The proposed General Obligation bond issue in the amount of 
$350 million would provide funds for the acquisition, 
construction, or reconstruction of privately owned UMBs. 
The proposed bond program would provide financial 
assistance in the form of loans to owners of UMBs. The $350 
million loan principle plus interest would be paid off by loan 
payments made by UMB owners and by property taxes. Item 
24, File 246-92-1 of the June, 1992, Finance Committee 
calendar, is a hearing to consider the creation of a Special 
Assessment District to finance the seismic retrofit of UMBs. 
The hearing sponsor reports that the development of a 
Special Assessment District could be an alternative to issuing 
General Obligation bonds or could be used to supplement 
such bonds. 



1 The "Bolts Plus" retrofit level requires anchoring walls to floors and roofs plus measures 
to strengthen walls. 

2 The UCBC retrofit alternative requires supplementing the Bolts Plus alternative by 
strengthening other building elements including floors, roofs, and walls. In some cases, 
new reinforced masonry or concrete walls, or shotcrete (sprayed concrete) over existing 
walls may be needed. 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

102 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Property owners would pay the majority of the seismic 
strengthening costs. The eligible uses of bond loan monies 
would be for construction costs, the costs of other Building 
Code requirements that are caused by the seismic 
strengthening work, including handicapped accessibility 
modifications, and costs, such a architects' and engineers' 
fees, that are associated with construction work. 

The UMB Task Force estimates that the proposed $350 
million bond authorization would be allocated as follows: 



Apartment building and residential hotels 
that provide affordable housing (50 percent 
of the floor space is devoted to residential 
use and 60 percent of the units are 
affordable for persons with incomes that are 
80 percent of median) 

Market rate residential properties and 
nonresidential properties engaged in 
commercial activities 

Total proposed bond issue 



Amount in 
Millions 



$150 



200 
$350 



As noted above, the resolution states that no more than $45 
million of the $350 million authorization could be sold in any 
one year. 

Comments: 1. Section 43607 of the State Government Code requires a two- 

thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors for 
adoption of this resolution. 

2. The proposed resolution does not authorize the issuance of 
the $350 million in General Obligation bonds, but declares the 
public interest and necessity for the proposed issuance and 
declares the intent of the City to place the proposed bond 
issuance on the November, 1992, ballot. Once the bonds are 
authorized, all bond expenditures would be subject to future 
appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. As previously stated, the bond proposal sponsor intends 
that the General Obligation bonds would be taxable. 
According to a Task Force discussion paper on the proposed 
bond issue, the reason that the use of tax exempt bonds are 
not being proposed is because tax-exempt bonds entail a 
number of requirements, such as obtaining an allocation 
from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

103 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



enforcing a Regulatory Agreement with the borrower for a 
15-year period, identifying all projects using a particular 
bond issue prior to issuance, and reserving at least 20 percent 
of every residential project for very-low income households at 
correspondingly low rents for the 15-year Regulatory 
Agreement period. 

4. Seismically deficient public buildings are undergoing 
bond-financed retrofit. Bond-financed funding of $59,700,000 
in 1989 and $332,000,000 in 1990 has been approved for this 
purpose. 

5. As of the writing of this report, the term of the bonds and 
the pay back period for borrowers had not been definitely 
decided upon. 

6. As currently proposed, the loan program would be 
administered by a private financial institution. Program 
rules, regulations, and guidelines would be adopted by the 
Board of Supervisors, following receipt of recommendations 
by a four-member loan committee appointed by the Board of 
Supervisors. The four-person loan committee would consist 
of one member each representing tenants, owners, financial 
institutions, and the community at large. The loan 
committee would determine eligibility and loan criteria. 
However, the City would retain the right to decline any 
application if the loan did not meet the purposes of the 
program, or for other reasons established in the guidelines. 

7. Current provisions of the proposed bond proposal that 
would apply to affordable housing are as follows: 

a. Bond funds would be loaned to owners of affordable 
housing at an interest rate equal to 500 points below the City's 
cost, with a 27-year term, secured by a deed of trust on the 
property. However, payments of principal and interest would 
be deferred for buildings with 65 percent of floor space 
dedicated to residential use, where 80 percent of the units are 
affordable to persons whose income does not exceed 80 
percent of median income. Unpaid interest would be added to 
the loan principal; 

b. Mitigation of the impact of rent increases on tenants 
would be a factor in determining the amount of funds loaned 
to owners; 

c. Units in buildings included in the affordable housing 
provisions of the loan program would be required to be 
maintained at a determined level of affordability for as long 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

104 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



as the loan is outstanding, or for 20 years, whichever is 
greater; 

d. Rent increases to cover upgrading costs could be passed 
through to tenants within the guidelines of the Rent 
Ordinance, with limitations to ensure that rents remain 
affordable to low and very low income tenants; 

e. Buildings unable to service the full debt necessary for 
seismic upgrading, even with all units producing income at 
maximum affordable rent levels, would be able to defer 
repayment of interest and principal until the cash flows 
permit repayment, or until the building was sold. 

8. Current provisions of the proposed bond proposal that 
would apply to market rate residential and commercial 
buildings, are as follows: 

a. Market rate loans, equivalent to the City's cost plus 100 
points, would be made to UMB owners of market rate 
residential and commercial buildings; 

b. Loans would be secured with a subordinate deed of trust 
on the property or, as an alternative, a deed of trust on other 
real property; 

c. Loans would be amortized over a 20 year period. 

9. The City's general obligation bonding capacity, which is 
equal to three percent of the City's total assessed property 
value, is approximately $1.6 billion. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood 
advises that the City's present amount of General Obligation 
bonds outstanding is $507 million. Therefore, the net 
available bonding capacity is approximately $1.09 billion. The 
proposed sale of $350 million of General Obligation bonds 
would reduce the City's bonding capacity to approximately 
$743 million. 

10. In addition to the City's existing General Obligation bond 
indebtedness of $507 million and this proposed $350 million 
bond issue, General Obligation bond indebtedness 
propositions that total $148,220,000 are before the City's 
electorate in the June 2, 1992, Consolidated Primary Election, 
as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Proposition Purpose Amount 

A Golden Gate Park Improvement Bonds $76,300,000 

B Civic Center Improvement Bonds 26,700,000 

C Civic Center Parking Garage Improvement Bonds 24,000,000 

D Civic Center Heating System Bonds 21.220.000 

Total $148,220,000 

11. The bond proposal also notes that the City would incur 
Program administrative costs estimated to be $1,500,000 per 
year for the first ten years of the Program. After the 10th 
year, the estimated administrative costs decrease to an 
estimated $500,000 per year. Over the proposed total 26 year 
repayment period, the City's estimated administrative costs 
would total approximately $22 million. The details of these 
administrative costs are not yet available. Administrative 
costs, after the origination period, could be covered by loan 
repayments. Such administrative costs funded by the bonds 
would be subject to future appropriation approval by the 
Board of Supervisors. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Item 24 - File 246-92-1 

This item is a hearing to consider the creation of a Special Assessment 
District to finance the seismic retrofit of unreinforced masonry buildings (UMBs). 

1. This item is companion to File 170-92-4, Item 23, on the June 3, 1992, 
Finance Committee calendar. File 170-92-4 is a resolution determining and 
declaring that the public interest and necessity warrant issuance of General 
Obligation bonds for the purpose of providing loans or grants for seismic 
strengthening of UMBs. This hearing (File 246-92-1) is to consider the creation of a 
Special Assessment District as an alternative or supplement to issuing General 
Obligation bonds for financing a portion of the total costs of the proposed UMB 
Seismic Strengthening Program. 

2. The hearing sponsor reports that the development of a Special 
Assessment District method as a means for providing loans or grants for seismic 
strengthening of UMBs is in its formative stages, and that the purpose of the 
hearing is to obtain a range of options for creating such a District. 




[arvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Gonzalez 
Supervisor Migden 
Supervisor Hallinan 
President Shelley 
Supervisor Achtenberg 
Supervisor Alioto 
Supervisor Britt 
Supervisor Conroy 
Supervisor Hsieh 
Supervisor Kennedy 
Supervisor Maher 
Clerk of the Board 
Chief Administrative Officer 
Controller 
Kent Sims 
Jean Mariani 
Barbara Kolesar 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUD( JET ANALYST 

107 



a5 



i* 



/// 

Memo to Finance Committee 

June 3, 1992 

-^ 

Item 8 - File 101-91-67 






Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 



Source of Funds: 



Description 




Department of Public Health (DPH) 

Laguna Honda Hospital 

San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 



DOCUMENTS DEP T 

m 4 m 

§AN PRAN61§gg 
PUBLIC USRARV 



Supplemental appropriation ordinance appropriating 
$12,662,437 for various purposes, rescinding $55,000 from 
Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous, $41,258 from 
professional services, $214,123 from Medical Services 
Contract, for fiscal year 1991-92 . 

$12,662,437 

MediCare Net Revenue $ 7,900,000 

Medi-Cal Net Revenue 2,473,042 

Other Patient Net Revenue 1,607,000 

Various Revenue and Expenditure 

Reappropriations (Includes 

reappropriation of Prop. 99 funds 

not included in the title of the 

proposed ordinance) 682,395 

Total $12,662,437 

The proposed supplemental appropriation would appropriate 
additional unanticipated patient revenues and reappropriate 
various previously appropriated DPH expenditures and 
revenues. These additional unanticipated patient revenues 
resulted from increased bed usage and patient census. The 
DPH reports that these additional revenues are needed for 
estimated year end operating expenditures and other revenue 
shortfalls, including shortfalls in workers compensation, 
fringe benefits, facilities maintenance at SFGH to prepare for 
an accreditation survey, and funds to be allocated to the 
General Fund representing SFGH's contribution to the 
current year deficit reduction plan. Specifically, the funds 
would be used as follows: 



San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) 


$11,497,715 


Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous 


$ 657,400 


Permanent Salaries - Craft 


17,000 


Permanent Salaries - Nurses 


404,500 


Overtime Pay 


15,200 


Holiday Pay 


L9,300 


Temporary Salaries 


85,300 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


251,300 


Other Fringe Benefits - Nurses 


260,000 


BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 




BUDGET ANALYST 




43 





Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

Contractual Services $ 1,400,000 

Materials & Supplies 1,999,600 

City Attorney 140,000 

Workers Compensation 421,000 
Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 

for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 349,798 

Facilities Maintenance & Capital Projects 528,000 

Transfer to General Fund 4,949.317 

Total SFGH $11,497,715 

kagUIia Honda Hospital (LHH) $ 483,042 

Workers Compensation 483.042 

Total LHH $ 483,042 

DPH - Central Office $ 681,680 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 40,000 
Community Public Health Services - 

(materials & supplies) 15,000 
Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 

for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 626.680 

Total DPH Central Office $ 681,680 

Grand Total $12,662,437 

Comments: 1. The DPH is projecting these expenditures of $12,662,437 to 

be incurred through the end of the fiscal year. However, 
some of these expenditures will already be incurred prior to 
the Board of Supervisors' consideration of the proposed 
supplemental appropriation ordinance. Since the DPH was 
unable to specify the amount of expenditures which would be 
incurred prior to the Board of Supervisors' consideration of 
the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance, the 
Budget Analyst recommends if the Board of Supervisors 
approves the proposed ordinance, the proposed ordinance 
should be amended to approve the expenditure of these funds 
retroactively. 

2. According to San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), the 
proposed supplemental appropriation request for permanent 
salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay and temporary salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits and other fringe benefits - nurses 
is based on current expenditure trends. Overall, SFGH 
reports that these increased expenditure trends are a result 
of increased patient loads. 

3. SFGH also reports that the $1,400,000 projected deficit for 
contractual services consists of $1,200,000 for increased use of 
nurses and pharmacists' registries, and $200,000 which has 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



been budgeted for additional facilities and maintenance 
contracts which the DPH anticipates completing in order to 
provide improvements for an accreditation and licensure 
survey performed by the Joint Commission on Accreditation 
of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO), which will occur in 
October, 1992 (See Comment #14). 

4. SFGH indicates that the $1,999,600 projected deficit for 
materials and supplies would be required for increased costs 
associated with new drugs and technology ($400,000), drug 
volume increases ($400,000), increased blood usage ($200,000), 
repayment to the State for AZT ($827,600) and various other 
materials and supplies ($172,000) needed for an accreditation 
and licensure survey (See Comment #14). 

5. The $140,000 request is for an overexpenditure of services 
provided by the City Attorney and the $421,000 request is for a 
deficiency in the workers compensation account. The Board 
of Supervisors are also considering another supplemental 
appropriation ordinance (File 101-91-69, Item #10) for 
workers compensation for various City departments. The 
request for supplemental funds for workers compensation at 
SFGH is not included in that request (File 101-91-69, Item 
#10). 

6. The $349,798 would be used to continue to provide 
Proposition 99 California Healthcare for the Indigent 
Program (CHIP) hospital services at SFGH. These additional 
funds are required as a result of reduced State revenues 
available through Proposition 99. 

7. The $528,000 is being requested by SFGH for Facilities 
Maintenance and Capital Projects proposed by SFGH in order 
to comply with the accreditation and licensure survey. This 
request is in addition to the $200,000 budgeted under 
contractual services, and the $172,000 for materials and 
supplies. Therefore, there is a total of $900,000 requested in 
this supplemental appropriation for Facilities Maintenance 
and Capital Projects associated with the accreditation and 
licensure survey. SFGH reports that based upon previous 
surveys completed, the new standards which would be 
applied in this survey would emphasize the Hospital's 1) 
urgent life-safety Code (Fire Code) and health and safety 
violations, 2) Emergency maintenance and survey 
preparation, and 3) compliance with previous citations. 
These projects are as follows: 

Fire and Smoke Controls $255,000 

Fire Doors 40,000 

Electrical Distribution Switch 30,000 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Emergency Stairwell Lighting $ 36,000 

Fire Exiting Signage 15,000 
Ethylene Oxide (ETO) Safety/ 

development of an exhaust duct 50,000 
Pigeon Abatement/Clean-up (reduce health 

risk to patients and staff) 70,000 

Asbestos Abatement 12,000 
Plumbing/Electrical/Carpentry/ 

Plaster/Painting 307,000 
Drapery Installation (Window curtains 

and privacy drapes for inpatient 

areas) 25,000 

Electrical Distribution Inspection 30,000 

Surgicenter Project Preparation 15,000 

Pathology Ventilation 15.000 

Total $900,000 

8. According to Mr. Jerry Rankin of SFGH, supplemental 
funding is being requested currently rather than as part of 
SFGH's 1992-93 budget because long lead times are required 
for these projects, and because the fiscal year 1992-93 budget 
does not contain sufficient funds to complete the projects 
required for the accreditation and licensure survey. 
According to SFGH expenditure reports, the funds budgeted 
for Facilities Maintenance during the current fiscal year 
were approximately $740,000, and these funds have been 
entirely expended. In addition, Mr. Peter Praetz of SFGH 
reports that although $937,000 was requested for Facilities 
Maintenance in SFGH's fiscal year 1992-93 budget, the Mayor 
is recommending approximately $300,000 for Facilities 
Maintenance. The Budget Analyst has not yet completed a 
detailed review of SFGH's fiscal year budget (See Comment 
#14). 

9. The $483,042 budgeted for Workers' Compensation at LHH 
is projected for underfunded Workers' Compensation 
expenditures for fiscal year 1991-92. As previously noted, the 
Board of Supervisors is also considering another 
supplemental appropriation ordinance (File 101-91-69, Item 
#10) for workers compensation for various City department. 
The request for supplemental funds for workers 
compensation at LHH is not included in that request (File 
101-91-69, Item #10). 

10. The DPH reports that based on current expenditure 
trends, it is estimated that the mandatory fringe benefit 
account for DPH's Central Office will be overexpended by 
$40,000. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



11. The DPH also reports that an additional $15,000 would be 
required for materials and supplies to provide for higher 
costs associated with pharmaceuticals used by the Family 
Planning Program, including the purchase of Norplant 
system-kits, which is a new birth control technology. 

12. Although the $626,680 is budgeted to provide Proposition 
99 California Healthcare for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 
hospital and administrative services provided by the DPH, 
according to Ms. Susan Ehrlich of the DPH, because there 
are corresponding Proposition 99 State revenue reductions, 
the $626,680 would actually result in a reduction in services 
for the CHIP program. 

13. The Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
$4,949,317 which would be transferred to the General Fund 
representing SFGH's contribution to the current year 1991-92 
deficit plan as previously represented by the Mayors' Office 
and the Controller. 

Given that the State is projecting a shortfall in Proposition 99 
funds for the California Healthcare for the Indigent Program 
(CHIP), and the DPH reports that this reduction may result 
in a reduction in services, the Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of the following CHIP Services: 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 
for the Indigent Program (CHIP) $ 349,798 

DPH - Central Office 

Proposition 99 - California Healthcare 
for the Indigent Program (CHIP) 626.680 

Subtotal CHIP Services $ 976,478 

The Controller's eight-month 1991-92 Financial Status Report 
dated March 30, 1992 projected deficits in permanent 
salaries, overtime pay, holiday pay, temporary salaries, 
mandatory fringe benefits and other fringe benefits totalling 
$2,477,000 for San Francisco General Hospital, and it was 
anticipated that SFGH would request a supplemental 
appropriation ordinance to cover the projected deficit to be 
funded by increased hospital revenues. Although the 
Controller projected a deficit totalling $2,477,000, based upon 
actual expenditures by SFGH through March 31, 1992, SFGH 
is requesting funds totalling $1,710,000 as outlined below. 
Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
following items: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Permanent Salaries - Miscellaneous 


$ 657,400 


Permanent Salaries - Craft 


17,000 


Permanent Salaries - Nurses 


404,500 


Overtime Pay 


15,200 


Holiday Pay 


19,300 


Temporary Salaries 


85,300 


Mandatory Fringe Benefits 


251,300 


Other Fringe Benefits - Nurses 


260.000 


Subtotal 


$ 1,710,000 



The Controller's eight-month 1991-92 Financial Status Report 
dated March 30, 1992 also projected a deficit for workers 
compensation for both SFGH and LHH which are consistent 
with the proposed supplemental appropriation ordinance 
request. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of the following items: 

San Francisco General Hospital 

Workers Compensation $ 421,000 

T^pma Honda Hospital 

Workers' Compensation 483.042 

Subtotal $ 904,042 

In addition, based upon the projected deficits in the Financial 
Status Report dated March 30, 1992, and based upon the 
actual expenditure information provided by SFGH, the 
Budget Analyst recommends approval of the following items: 

San Francisco Gener al Hospital 

Contractual Services $ 1,200,000 

Materials & Supplies 1,827,600 

City Attorney 140,000 

DPH - Central Office 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits 40,000 

Community Public Health Services 15.000 

Subtotal $ 3,222,600 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Although the Budget Analyst has not yet completed a detailed 
review of the DPH's 1992-93 fiscal year budget, because the 
$900,000 requested for facilities maintenance projects would 
enable the SFGH to begin projects to meet its accreditation, 
and based upon the detailed expenditure details which have 
been provided by the SFGH, the Budget Analyst recommends 
approval of the following items: 



San Francisco General Hospita l 

Contractual Services 
Materials & Supplies 
Facilities Maintenance & Capital Projects 
Total 



$ 200,000 
172,000 
528.000 

$ 900,000 



The Budget Analyst will consider the proposed $900,000 in 
facilities maintenance projects during our detailed review of 
the DPH's 1992-93 budget as recommended by the Mayor, and 
recommend any reductions to the Finance Committee in the 
1992-93 budget if the budget includes any of the facilities 
maintenance projects which are requested to be funded 
through this proposed supplemental appropriation. The 
Budget Analyst will also carefully review any additional 
facilities maintenance projects in the 1992-93 budget which 
concern accreditation. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed ordinance. 



As noted above, the proposed supplemental appropriation 
ordinance includes $4,949,317 which would be transferred to 
the General Fund representing SFGH's contribution to the 
current year's 1991-92 deficit plan. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



/// // 

Memo to Finance Committee 

June 3, 1992 n2. 4 ^ /\^u^ fy w«j 

II & ^ 7 

11 REVISED 

Item 23 - File 170-92-4 



Proposed Action: 



DOCUMENTS *?**' 
PUBUC UBftA^ v 



Amount: 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would determine and declare that the 
public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction, or reconstruction by the City and County of the 
following municipal improvements, to wit: to provide loans or 
grants for the seismic strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry 
Buildings (UMBs) for affordable housing and market-rate 
residential and commercial purposes; that the estimated cost of 
$350 million for said municipal improvement is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue 
of the City and County and will require the incurring of bonded 
indebtedness; provided, however, that no more than $45 million 
of this authorization shall be sold in any one fiscal year. 

$350 million 

The State of California has enacted legislation that requires all 
localities to identify UMBs and to establish a program to mitigate 
the hazards of UMBs resulting from a major earthquake. The 
State will not reimburse the City for the costs of the program. 
Ms. Judy Boyajian of the City Attorney's Office reports that, 
according to State law, should the City not implement a seismic 
strengthening program by January 1, 1993, the City would then 
be precluded from implementing any such seismic 
strengthening program for commercial UMBs that is less 
restrictive than State-imposed requirements. The State law 
would not apply to retrofits of residential UMBs in the City and 
County of San Francisco if the City makes findings that 
deviations from State law are required due to local conditions. 

To address the hazards of UMBs, a Task Force on Unreinforced 
Masonry Buildings, appointed by the Chief Administrative 
Officer (CAO), has been meeting regularly for the past five years 
to develop a seismic strengthening program for UMBs. The 
activities of the Task Force have resulted in a proposed Seismic 
Strengthening Program, as described below. The goals of the 
Seismic Strengthening Program are to retrofit the maximum 
number of UMBs in order to protect lives and to preserve 
affordable housing, jobs, neighborhood character, and 
historically significant buildings. 

The City's proposed Seismic Strengthening Program is 
delineated in proposed new sections amending the City's 
Building Code. The proposed Chapter 14, titled "Earthquake 
Hazard Reduction in Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Buildings," covers the scope of the proposed UMB Program, 
general compliance requirements, and the administration of the 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUI )( JET ANALYST 

100 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Program. The proposed new Chapter 15, titled "Seismic 
Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing 
Wall Building," contains the technical requirements for seismic 
strengthening of unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings. 

The major general provisions of the proposed UMB Program are 
as follows: 

a. Residential unreinforced masonry buildings containing less 
than five dwelling units or guest rooms and used solely for 
residential purposes would be exempted from the UMB 
Program. 

b. The Superintendent of the Bureau of Building Inspection 
would be required to issue an order to the owner of each building 
within the scope of the UMB Program to initiate UMB retrofit 
actions. The order would contain a copy of the proposed 
Chapters 14 and 15 of the Building Code, a commentary on these 
chapters, a sample inventory form and an engineering report 
summary form. The owner or the owner's agent may appeal the 
Superintendent's order to the Board of Examiners. 

c. The owners of UMBs in receipt of the Superintendent's order 
would be required to have a structural analysis of the UMB 
performed. If the building does not meet the minimum 
standards specified in the Building Code, except as provided for 
in the proposed UMB Program, the owner must have the 
building structurally altered to conform to such standards or 
have the building demolished. 

d. The results of the structural analysis, complemented by an 
inventory form, a risk assessment, and an engineering report 
that details applicable retrofit requirements, all within specified 
time limits that are dependent on the UMB's assigned level of 
risk, would be submitted to the Bureau of Building Inspection. If 
this $350 million bond proposal is not approved by the City's 
electorate, owner's of UMBs would not be required to have the 
seismic strengthening work performed. All seismic upgrading 
would be required to be completed within 13 years of passage of 
this $350 million General Obligation bond proposal. 

e. This proposed legislation does not require alteration of 
existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life- 
safety systems that are in compliance with the respective codes 
in effect at the time of their original legally permitted 
construction or installation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

101 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



f. Section 1509(b), which would be a part of the newly created 
Chapter 15 of the San Francisco Building Code, describes the 
minimum standards to be applied to UMB structures. Buildings 
with sufficient mortar strength and crosswalls may upgrade to 
a "Bolts Plus" 1 level if other described weaknesses are 
addressed. Assembly, educational and institutional buildings, 
those with rigid floor systems, those over six stories tall 
(Building Code occupancy classifications A, E and I), and those 
with remaining deficiencies, must upgrade to Uniform Code for 
Building Conservation (UCBC) standards. 2 Retrofit beyond the 
level described in Section 104(f) of the existing San Francisco 
Building Code will not be required. 

The Task Force estimates that the cost of retrofitting the City's 
approximately 2,000 UMBs to make them seismically safe is $450 
million. According to Mr. David Prowler of the CAO's Office, an 
estimated 78 of the approximately 2,000 UMBs would not be 
subject to the provisions of the seismic strengthening program 
because they are residential UMBs containing less than five 
units. Although the estimated cost is $450 million, this proposed 
legislation would only provide financing for $350 million. 

The proceeds from the proposed $350 million General Obligation 
bond issue would provide funds for the seismic strengthening of 
privately owned UMBs. The proposed bond program would 
provide financial assistance in the form of loans to owners of 
UMBs. The $350 million loan principal plus interest would be 
paid off by loan payments made by UMB owners and by property 
taxes. Item 24, File 246-92-1 of the June, 1992, Finance 
Committee calendar, is a hearing to consider the creation of a 
Special Assessment District to finance the seismic retrofit of 
UMBs. The hearing sponsor reports that the development of a 
Special Assessment District could be an alternative to issuing 
General Obligation bonds or could be used to supplement such 
bonds. 

Property owners would pay the majority of the seismic 
strengthening costs. The eligible uses of bond loan monies would 
be for construction costs, the costs of other Building Code 
requirements that are caused by the seismic strengthening 
work, including handicapped accessibility modifications, and 



1 The "Bolts Plus" retrofit level requires anchoring walls to floors and roofs plus measures 
to strengthen walls. 

2 The UCBC retrofit alternative requires supplementing the Bolts l'lus alternative by 
strengthening other building elements including floors, roofs, and walls. In some cases, 
new reinforced masonry or concrete walls, or shotcrete (sprayed concrete) over existing 
walls may be needed. 

HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
B UI )GET ANALYST 

102 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 

costs, such as architects' and engineers' fees, that are 
associated with construction work. 

The bond proposal sponsor estimates that the proposed $350 
million bond authorization would be allocated as follows: 

Amount in 
Millions 
Apartment building and residential hotels that 
provide affordable housing (50 percent of the 
floor space is devoted to residential use and 60 
percent of the units are affordable for persons 
with incomes that are no more than 80 percent 
of median) $150 

Market rate residential properties and 
nonresidential properties engaged in 
commercial activities 200 

Total proposed bond issue $350 

As noted above, the resolution states that no more than $45 
million of the $350 million authorization could be sold in any one 
year. 

Comments: 1. Section 43607 of the State Government Code requires a two- 

thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors for 
adoption of this resolution. 

2. The proposed resolution does not authorize the issuance of the 
$350 million in General Obligation bonds, but declares the public 
interest and necessity for the proposed issuance. Should the 
bonds be authorized, all bond expenditures would be subject to 
future appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The bond proposal sponsor intends that the General 
Obligation bonds would not be tax-exempt because the bond 
proceeds would be used for "private activities." Tax-exempt 
bonds may be available for the low-income portion of the UMB 
Program, however, a number of requirements, such as 
obtaining an allocation from the California Debt Limit 
Allocation Committee, enforcing a Regulatory Agreement with 
the borrower for a 15-year period, identifying all projects using a 
particular bond issue prior to issuance, and reserving at least 20 
percent of every residential project for very-low income 
households at correspondingly low rents for the 15-year 
Regulatory Agreement period. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

103 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



4. Although the proposed legislation provides that no more than 
$45 million for the $350 million authorization sought could be 
sold in any one year, the bond proposal sponsor currently 
intends that no more than $35 million be sold in any one year. 
The $35 million annual sale authorization would be on a 
cumulative basis, i.e., any sums less than $35 million sold in 
any year could be added to the $35 million sale authorization for 
any subsequent year. 

5. Seismically deficient public buildings are undergoing bond- 
financed retrofit. Bond-financed funding of $59,700,000 in 1989 
and $332,000,000 in 1990 has been approved for this purpose. 

6. Current provisions of the proposed bond proposal that would 
apply to affordable housing are as follows: 

a. Bond funds would be loaned to owners of affordable housing 
at an interest rate equal to one-third of the City's cost, with a 20- 
year term, secured by a deed of trust on the property. However, 
the bond proposal provides that up to $60 million in such loans 
could be deferred for buildings with 60 percent of floor space 
dedicated to residential use, where 80 percent of the units are 
affordable to persons whose income does not exceed 80 percent of 
median income. Unpaid interest would be added to the loan 
principal; 

b. Mitigation of the impact of rent increases on tenants would be 
a factor in determining the loan terms for owners; 

c. Units in buildings included in the affordable housing 
provisions of the loan program would be required to be 
maintained at a determined level of affordability for as long as 
the loan is outstanding, or for 20 years, whichever is greater; 

d. Rent increases to cover upgrading costs could be passed 
through to tenants within the guidelines of the Rent Ordinance, 
with limitations to ensure that rents remain affordable to low 
and very low income tenants; 

e. Buildings unable to service the full debt necessary for seismic 
upgrading, even with all units producing income at maximum 
affordable rent levels, would be able to defer repayment of 
interest and principal until the cash flows permit repayment, or 
until the building was sold. 

7. Current provisions of the bond proposal that would apply to 
market rate residential and commercial buildings, are as 
follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

104 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



a. Market rate loans, equivalent to the City's cost plus 100 basis 
points (one percent), would be made to UMB owners of market 
rate residential and commercial buildings; 

b. Loans would be secured with a deed of trust on the property 
or, as an alternative, a deed of trust on other real property; 

c. Loans would be amortized over a 20 year period. 

8. The City's Deputy Fiscal Officer who oversees the City debt 
issuances, Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's Office, 
reports that if the bonds were sold today, the probable interest 
rate would be between 8.0 percent and 9.0 percent. 

9. As of the writing of this report, the term of the bonds and the 
pay back period for borrowers had not been definitely decided 
upon. However, for purposes of estimating costs, debt servicing, 
property tax effects, and other variables, Ms. Wagner-Lockwood 
has used a bond term of 20 years. Other current assumptions 
include that the bonds would be issued in 10 series of $35 million 
each with an overall interest rate of nine percent, beginning in 
fiscal year 1992-93, that the repayment interest rate for 
affordable housing UMBs would be three percent, and that the 
repayment interest rate for commercial and market- rate 
residential UMBs would be 10 percent. Attachment I to this 
report contains the proposed phased issuance of the bonds. 

10. Attachment II to this report displays a tentative bond 
program, as developed by Ms. Wagner-Lockwood. Using the 
assumptions previously cited, Attachment II shows that the 
proposed $350 million bond sale would result in a total bond 
interest cost of approximately $417 million and a total debt 
service requirement of approximately $767 million. Over the 29- 
year period of the loan and repayment program, this would 
result in an average debt service of approximately $26.4 million 
per year. 

11. The first three columns of Attachment II show Total 
Interest, Total Principal, and Annual Debt Service for each year 
of the currently proposed 29-year loan and repayment program. 
Those figures represent the sums the City would liable for to the 
bondholders. The next six columns represent loan payments 
that UMB borrowers would be liable to the City for. The 
Maximum Loan Debt Service column shows the maximum sum 
the City could expect to collect from affordable housing and 
commercial and market-rate housing borrowers, combined. 
Also factored into the model are the effects of deferred loan 
payments, loan defaults, administrative costs, the resulting Net 
Loan Debt Service that would be paid from property taxes, and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

105 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



the percentages of Total Debt Service that would be paid by loan 
payments and by property taxes. 

12. The parameters used in the model shown in Attachment II 
would result, for the first year of the 20-year term of the bonds, in 
a debt service paid by property taxes of $2,398,000, or an 
approximately $0.0042 per $100 of assessed value increase in the 
property tax rate. At that rate, the owner of a house assessed at 
$250,000, would pay approximately $10 in additional annual 
property taxes due to this bond issue. The maximum annual 
debt service paid by property taxes, $12,732,000 each for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2006, or an approximately $0.0142 per $100 of 
assessed value increase in the property tax rate. At that rate, the 
owner of a house assessed at $250,000 would pay a maximum of 
approximately $36 in additional annual property taxes in the 
year 2003 due to this bond issue. 

13. As currently proposed, the loan program would be 
administered by a private financial institution. Program rules, 
regulations, and guidelines would be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors, following receipt of recommendations by a four- 
member program committee appointed by the Board of 
Supervisors. The four-person program committee would consist 
of one member each representing tenants, owners, financial 
institutions, and the community at large. The program 
committee would determine eligibility and loan criteria. 
However, the City would retain the right to decline any 
application if the loan did not meet the purposes of the program, 
or for other reasons established in the guidelines. 

14. The City's General Obligation bonding capacity, which is 
equal to three percent of the City's total assessed property value, 
is approximately $1.6 billion. Ms. Wagner-Lockwood advises that 
the City's present amount of General Obligation bonds 
outstanding is $507 million. Therefore, the net available legal 
bonding capacity is approximately $1.09 billion. The proposed 
$350 million General Obligation bonds would reduce the City's 
legal bonding capacity by whatever portion of the $350 million is 
actually issued and outstanding at any given time. 

15. In addition to the City's existing General Obligation bond 
indebtedness of $507 million and this proposed $350 million bond 
issue, General Obligation bond indebtedness propositions that 
total $148,220,000 are pending before the City's electorate in the 
June 2, 1992, Consolidated Primary Election, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 3, 1992 



Proposition 

A 
B 
C 
D 



Purpose 



Golden Gate Park Improvement Bonds 
Civic Center Improvement Bonds 
Civic Center Parking Garage Improvement Bonds 
Civic Center Heating System Bonds 
Total 



Amount 

$76,300,000 

26,700,000 

24,000,000 

21.220.000 

$148,220,000 



Recommendation: 



16. Further, General Obligation bond indebtedness of $882.4 
million is being considered by the Finance Committee on June 
10, 1992, for placement before the City's electorate in the 
November, 1992, General Election, as follows: 

Purpose Amount 

Fire Protection Systems $97,000,000 

Juvenile Justice Complex Construction Bonds 78,900,000 

Laguna Honda Hospital Construction Bonds 548,400,000 

San Bruno Jail Construction Bonds 158.100.000 

Total $882,400,000 

17. The bond proposal also notes that the City would incur 
Program administrative costs estimated to be $1,250,000 per year 
for the first 13 years of the Program. Thereafter, the estimated 
administrative costs decrease to an estimated $500,000 per year. 
Over the proposed total 29 year repayment period, the City's 
estimated administrative costs would total approximately $24.25 
million. The details of these administrative costs are not yet 
available. Administrative costs, after the origination period, 
could be covered by loan repayments. Such administrative costs 
funded by the bonds would be subject to future appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. If the Board of Supervisors decides to 
approve the proposed resolution, amend lines 12 and 13 on page 
one of the proposed resolution to provide that no more than $35 
million dollars of said authorization shall be sold in any one 
fiscal year, on a cumulative basis. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

106a 



■tt.LLacuuiei.iL 





CSNMCSMMNNNN 



o 




fc cS 



— "2 C 



3 



-2 


4> 




u 


u 


> 


F 


c 


□ 


CO 


o 

lO 






£> 


*/> 


U 


_> 


Q 


o 



o o t— 

85? 



106b 



Mil 

j r g * 



i||§> 



I I|f » 



li»t 



H!js;r,: 



;sSass2l?IJs55sS*S5s55isis£si 



:«;s;ji: 






5 3 i 13 s 3 H 5 5 5 5 3 a s S S i IS ! i [I ! 2 II 5 5 s s i S 3 S 






1 1 1 J 



j JJ!i 






;i:nn«n33333333n:j3: 



l2iS*s3aiillS»SSSSs;sS=| 3 = £ s 
r •' «■ d i =" s ri a" a" a' a" s s a s s x s a s = 2 =! 2' - -' - 



aaa3a3aaaaaaa§§§§ISS§§§§III§§ 



[jVrf«V. 



:^;?;!:Ss;3;j: 



•s;?2 s : 



s53=»83SSS5S5S;55sS5S*382S35S 
- J a" a" a" a" a' a' a' a' a" a' a' a =' S S =' •' -" ■* - 



r ? •■ -• v -i .- -- . 



SSSgSJSESSSSslHi.B 2 1 3 3 2 3 5 a 1 5 3 

§2§:Si5 = i3§55s3S3iSssisi2iss55 



11 



5 1 1 s 1 1 s 8 s S S 5 s S S s S S 8 5 s I s a a 3 3 1 § 

" Z- -- 3 -j ~- v v *• «- «■ «- « " *- ^- * Zi - w "■ ? «■ ~ * ~- Z ! 



! i 

i \ 



IS' 



; 3 a J s | 5 J 3. g | fj j 5 r g 5 § 2 s 3 j 1 1 § = a 5 3 1 : 



••" i i i « a a c c" a a a 



3 5 ft a 5 fc s jj:i s s b = v x I a ; 



:XS|88g|88i 



106c 



(public Library, (Documents Tfe^t 

Memo to Finance Committee JfcPEhQ (jerry %Ot\ 

REVISFn 



Item 4 - File 170-92-4 






REVISED 



M^'vC Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of June 3, 
1992. 



Proposed Action: 



Amount: 



Description: 



DOCUMENT ~~-' 

JUN 1 1 WW 

PUBLIC U»B* Rt 



The proposed resolution would determine and declare that the 
public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, 
construction, or reconstruction by the City and County of the 
following municipal improvements, to wit: to provide loans or 
grants for the seismic strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry 
Buildings (UMBs) for affordable housing and market-rate 
residential and commercial purposes; that the estimated cost of 
$350 million for said municipal improvement is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue 
of the City and County and will require the incurring of bonded 
indebtedness; provided, however, that no more than $35 million 
of this authorization shall be sold in any one fiscal year. 

$350 million 

The State of California has enacted legislation that requires all 
localities to identify UMBs and to establish a program to mitigate 
the hazards of UMBs resulting from a major earthquake. The 
State will not reimburse the City for the costs of the program. 
Ms. Judy Boyajian of the City Attorney's Office reports that, 
according to State law, should the City not implement a seismic 
strengthening program by January 1, 1993, the City would then 
be precluded from implementing any such seismic 
strengthening program for commercial UMBs that is less 
restrictive than State-imposed requirements. The State law 
would not apply to retrofits of residential UMBs in the City and 
County of San Francisco if the City makes findings that 
deviations from State law are required due to local conditions. 

To address the hazards of UMBs, a Task Force on Unreinforced 
Masonry Buildings, appointed by the Chief Administrative ' 
Officer (CAO), has been meeting regularly for the past five years 
to develop a seismic strengthening program for UMBs. The 
activities of the Task Force have resulted in a proposed Seismic 
Strengthening Program, as described below. The goals of the 
Seismic Strengthening Program are to retrofit the maximum 
number of UMBs in order to protect lives and to preserve 
affordable housing, jobs, neighborhood character, and 
historically significant buildings. 

The City's proposed Seismic Strengthening Program is 
delineated in proposed new sections amending the City's 
Building Code. The proposed Chapter 14, titled "Earthquake 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Hazard Reduction in Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall 
Buildings," covers the scope of the proposed UMB Program, 
general compliance requirements, and the administration of the 
Program. The proposed new Chapter 15, titled "Seismic 
Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced Masonry Bearing 
Wall Building," contains the technical requirements for seismic 
strengthening of unreinforced masonry bearing wall buildings. 

The major general provisions of the proposed UMB Program are 
as follows: 

a. Residential unreinforced masonry buildings containing less 
than five dwelling units or guest rooms and used solely for 
residential purposes would be exempted from the UMB 
Program. 

b. The Superintendent of the Bureau of Building Inspection 
would be required to issue an order to the owner of each building 
within the scope of the UMB Program to initiate UMB retrofit 
actions. The order would contain a copy of the proposed 
Chapters 14 and 15 of the Building Code, a commentary on these 
chapters, a sample inventory form and an engineering report 
summary form. The owner or the owner's agent may appeal the 
Superintendent's order to the Board of Examiners. 

c. The owners of UMBs in receipt of the Superintendent's order 
would be required to have a structural analysis of the UMB 
performed. If the building does not meet the minimum 
standards specified in the Building Code, except as provided for 
in the proposed UMB Program, the owner must have the 
building structurally altered to conform to such standards or 
have the building demolished. 

d. The results of the structural analysis, complemented by an 
inventory form, a risk assessment, and an engineering report 
that details applicable retrofit requirements, all within specified 
time limits that are dependent on the UMB's assigned level of 
risk, would be submitted to the Bureau of Building Inspection. If 
this $350 million bond proposal is not approved by the City's 
electorate, owner's of UMBs would not be required to have the 
seismic strengthening work performed. All seismic upgrading 
would be required to be completed within 13 years of passage of 
this $350 million General Obligation bond proposal. 

e. This proposed legislation does not require alteration of 
existing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, fire protection or life- 
safety systems that are in compliance with the respective codes 
in effect at the time of their original legally permitted 
construction or installation. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

49 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



f. Section 1509(b), which would be a part of the newly-created 
Chapter 15 of the San Francisco Building Code, describes the 
minimum standards to be applied to UMB structures. Buildings 
with sufficient mortar strength and crosswalls may upgrade to 
a "Bolts Plus" 1 level if other described weaknesses are 
addressed. Assembly, educational and institutional buildings, 
those with rigid floor systems, those over six stories tall 
(Building Code occupancy classifications A, E and I), and those 
with remaining deficiencies, must upgrade to Uniform Code for 
Building Conservation (UCBC) standards. 2 Retrofit beyond the 
level described in Section 104(f) of the existing San Francisco 
Building Code will not be required. 

The Task Force estimates that the cost of retrofitting the City's 
approximately 2,000 UMBs to make them seismically safe is $450 
million. According to Mr. David Prowler of the CAO's Office, an 
estimated 78 of the approximately 2,000 UMBs would not be 
subject to the provisions of the seismic strengthening program 
because they are residential UMBs containing less than five 
units. Although the estimated cost is $450 million, this proposed 
legislation would only provide financing for $350 million. 

The proceeds from the proposed $350 million General Obligation 
bond issue would provide funds for the seismic strengthening of 
privately owned UMBs. The proposed bond program would 
provide financial assistance in the form of loans to owners of 
UMBs. The $350 million loan principal plus interest would be 
paid off by loan payments made by UMB owners and by property 
taxes. 

Property owners would pay the majority of the seismic 
strengthening costs. The eligible uses of bond loan monies would 
be for construction costs, the costs of other Building Code 
requirements that are caused by the seismic strengthening 
work, including handicapped accessibility modifications, and 
costs, such as architects' and engineers' fees, that are 
associated with construction work. 

The bond proposal sponsor estimates that the proposed $350 
million bond authorization would be allocated as follows: 



1 The "Bolts Plus" retrofit level requires anchoring walls to floors and roofs plus measures 
to strengthen walls. 

2 The UCBC retrofit alternative requires supplementing the Bolts Plus alternative by 
strengthening other building elements including floors, roofs, and walls. In some cases, 
new reinforced masonry or concrete walls, or shotcrete (sprayed concrete) over existing 
walls may be needed. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

50 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Amount in 
Millions 
Apartment building and residential hotels that 
provide affordable housing (50 percent of the 
floor space is devoted to residential use and 60 
percent of the units are affordable for persons 
with incomes that are no more than 80 percent of 
median) $150 

Market rate residential properties and 
nonresidential properties engaged in 
commercial activities 200 

Total proposed bond issue $350 

As noted above, the resolution states that no more than $35 
million of the $350 million authorization could be sold in any one 
year. 

Comments: 1. Section 43607 of the State Government Code requires a two- 

thirds vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors for 
adoption of this resolution. 

2. The proposed resolution does not authorize the issuance of the 
$350 million in General Obligation bonds, but declares the public 
interest and necessity for the proposed issuance. Should the 
bonds be authorized, all bond expenditures would be subject to 
future appropriation by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. The bond proposal sponsor intends that the General 
Obligation bonds would not be tax-exempt because the bond 
proceeds would be used for "private activities." Tax-exempt 
bonds may be available for the low-income portion of the UMB 
Program, however, a number of requirements, such as 
obtaining an allocation from the California Debt Limit 
Allocation Committee, enforcing a Regulatory Agreement with 
the borrower for a 15-year period, identifying all projects using a 
particular bond issue prior to issuance, and reserving at least 20 
percent of every residential project for very-low income 
households at correspondingly low rents for the 15-year 
Regulatory Agreement period. 

4. The $35 million annual sale authorization would be on a 
cumulative basis, i.e., any sums less than $35 million sold in 
any year could be added to the $35 million sale authorization for 
any subsequent year. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

51 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



5. Seismically deficient public buildings are undergoing bond- 
financed retrofit. Bond-financed funding of $59,700,00(rtn 1989 
and $332,000,000 in 1990 has been approved for this purpose. 

6. Current provisions of the proposed bond proposal that would 
apply to affordable housing are as follows: 

a. Bond funds would be loaned to owners of affordable housing 
at an interest rate equal to one-third of the City's cost, with a 20- 
year term, secured by a deed of trust on the property. However, 
the bond proposal provides that up to $60 million in such loans 
could be deferred for buildings with 60 percent of floor space 
dedicated to residential use, where 80 percent of the units are 
affordable to persons whose income does not exceed 80 percent of 
median income. Unpaid interest would be added to the loan 
principal; 

b. Mitigation of the impact of rent increases on tenants would be 
a factor in determining the loan terms for owners; 

c. Units in buildings included in the affordable housing 
provisions of the loan program would be required to be 
maintained at a determined level of affordability for as long as 
the loan is outstanding, or for 20 years, whichever is greater; 

d. Rent increases to cover upgrading costs could be passed 
through to tenants within the guidelines of the Rent Ordinance, 
with limitations to ensure that rents remain affordable to low 
and very low income tenants; 

e. Buildings unable to service the full debt necessary for seismic 
upgrading, even with all units producing income at maximum 
affordable rent levels, would be able to defer repayment of 
interest and principal until the cash flows permit repayment, or 
until the building was sold. 

7. Current provisions of the bond proposal that would apply to 
market rate residential and commercial buildings, are as 
follows: 

a. Market rate loans, equivalent to the City's cost plus 100 basis 
points (one percent), would be made to UMB owners of market 
rate residential and commercial buildings; 

b. Loans would be secured with a deed of trust on the property 
or, as an alternative, a deed of trust on other real property; 

c. Loans would be amortized over a 20 year period. 



BOARD OF SI TPKKV1SOK3 
BUDGET ANALYST 

52 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



8. The City's Deputy Fiscal Officer who oversees the City debt 
issuances, Ms. Laura Wagner-Lockwood of the CAO's-Office, 
reports that if the bonds were sold today, the probable interest 
rate would be between 8.0 percent and 9.0 percent. 

9. As of the writing of this report, the term of the bonds and the 
pay back period for borrowers had not been definitely decided 
upon. However, for purposes of estimating costs, debt servicing, 
property tax effects, and other variables, Ms. Wagner-Lockwood 
has used a bond term of 20 years. Other current assumptions 
include that the bonds would be issued in 10 series of $35 million 
each with an overall interest rate of nine percent, beginning in 
fiscal year 1992-93, that the repayment interest rate for 
affordable housing UMBs would be three percent, and that the 
repayment interest rate for commercial and market- rate 
residential UMBs would be 10 percent. Attachment I to this 
report contains the proposed phased issuance of the bonds. 

10. Attachment II to this report displays a tentative bond 
program, as developed by Ms. Wagner-Lockwood. Using the 
assumptions previously cited, Attachment II shows that the 
proposed $350 million bond sale would result in a total bond 
interest cost of approximately $417 million and a total debt 
service requirement of approximately $767 million. Over the 29- 
year period of the loan and repayment program, this would 
result in an average debt service of approximately $26.4 million 
per year. 

11. The first three columns of Attachment II show Total 
Interest, Total Principal, and Annual Debt Service for each year 
of the currently proposed 29-year loan and repayment program. 
Those figures represent the sums the City would liable for to the 
bondholders. The next six columns represent loan payments 
that UMB borrowers would be liable to the City for. The 
Maximum Loan Debt Service column shows the maximum sum 
the City could expect to collect from affordable housing and 
commercial and market-rate housing borrowers, combined. 
Also factored into the model are the effects of deferred loan 
payments, loan defaults, administrative costs, and the resulting 
percentages of Total Debt Service that would be paid from 
property taxes (ranging from 31.3 percent to 46.2 percent, 
excluding the first year), and the percentages of Total Debt 
Service that would be paid by loan repayments (ranging from 
53.8 percent to 68.7 percent, excluding the first year). 

12. The parameters used in the model shown in Attachment II 
would result, for the first year of the 20-year term of the bonds, in 
a debt service paid by property taxes of $2,398,000, or an 
approximately $0.0042 per $100 of assessed value increase in the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

53 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



property tax rate. At that rate, the owner of a house assessed at 
$250,000, would pay approximately $10 in additionak-annual 
property taxes due to this bond issue. The maximum annual 
debt service paid by property taxes, $12,732,000 each for fiscal 
years 2003 through 2006, or an approximately $0.0142 per $100 of 
assessed value increase in the property tax rate. At that rate, the 
owner of a house assessed at $250,000 would pay a maximum of 
approximately $36 in additional annual property taxes in the 
year 2003 due to this bond issue. 

13. As currently proposed, the loan program would be 
administered by a private financial institution. Program rules, 
regulations, and guidelines would be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors, following receipt of recommendations by a four- 
member program committee appointed by the Board of 
Supervisors. The four-person program committee would consist 
of one member each representing tenants, owners, financial 
institutions, and the community at large. The program 
committee would determine eligibility and loan criteria. 
However, the City would retain the right to decline any 
application if the loan did not meet the purposes of the program, 
or for other reasons established in the guidelines. 

14. The City's General Obligation bond capacity is equal to three 
percent of the City's total assessed property value. The City's 
current outstanding General Obligation bond capacity, less 
previously approved bond issues, will be $1.08 billion on June 30, 
1992, according to the CAO. The CAO estimates that the City's 
debt capacity will increase by $78.6 million in 1992-93 with the 
expected increase in the value of assessed property, but increase 
an additional $20.4 million because some debts would be retired, 
for a net increase of $99 million. The proposed $350 million 
General Obligation bonds would reduce the City's legal bonding 
capacity by whatever portion of the $350 million is actually 
issued and outstanding at any given time. In 1992-93, the CAO 
anticipates that $35 million of the proposed $350 million UMB 
bonds would be sold. 

15. In addition to the City's existing General Obligation bond 
indebtedness of $507 million and this proposed $350 million bond 
issue, one General Obligation bond indebtedness proposition for 
Golden Gate Park Improvement Bonds for $76,300,000 was 
approved by the City's electorate on June 2, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

54 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



16. Further, General Obligation bond indebtedness of— $882.4 
million is being considered by the Finance Committee on June 
10, 1992, for placement before the City's electorate in the 
November, 1992, General Election, as follows: 

Purpose Amount 

Fire Protection Systems $97,000,000 

Juvenile Justice Complex Construction Bonds 78,900,000 

Laguna Honda Hospital Construction Bonds 548,400,000 

San Bruno Jail Construction Bonds 158.100.000 

Total $882,400,000 

17. The bond proposal also notes that the City would incur 
Program administrative costs estimated to be $1,250,000 per year 
for the first 13 years of the Program. Thereafter, the estimated 
administrative costs decrease to an estimated $500,000 per year. 
Over the proposed total 29 year repayment period, the City's 
estimated administrative costs would total approximately $24.25 
million. The details of these administrative costs are not yet 
available. Administrative costs, after the origination period, 
could be covered by loan repayments. Such administrative costs 
funded by the bonds would be subject to future appropriation 
approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

18. Mr. Jack Pizza of the City Attorney's Office reports that 
amendments to the proposed UMB bond legislation concerning 
issues of affordability and loan allocations may be made prior to 
the June 10, 1992, meeting of the Finance Committee, or that 
those concerns could be addressed subsequently in separate 
legislation. As of the writing of this report, the Budget Analyst 
had not received any amendments to the proposed legislation. 

19. As noted above, the total of the five proposed bond issues is 
$1,232,400,000. In June, 1992 four bond issues were considered by 
San Francisco voters, as follows: 

Proposition A: Golden Gate Park Improvements $76,300,000 

Proposition B: Civic Center Improvements 26,700,000 
Proposition C: Civic Center Parking 

Garage Improvements 24,000,000 

Proposition D: Civic Center Heating System 21.220.000 

TOTAL $148,220,000 

Of the four bond proposals, only the Golden Gate Park 
Improvements bond was approved. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

55 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

The $148,220,000 total bond proposals considered by the voters in 
June, 1992 represent 12 percent of the total bond proposals of 
$1,232,400,000 currently being considered by the Finance 
Committee. The $76,300,000 approved by the voters in June, 1992 
for Golden Gate Park Improvements represents six percent of 
the current bond proposals being considered by the Finance 
Committee. 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors. 



HOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Attachment I 






"3-3 



o 

1 




; 2 



5 



c -o 



c 
o 




4> 


e 

c 


T3 


t-J 

so 


U 

•o 

c 


o 

c 


CO 


E 
a 


C 

a 

O 


.». 


u 


2; 


(A 


JZ 


a 










C 


•*: 


U 


_J 


a 


c 


-r^ 


a. 



■s 



ON ON CTv O Ov <>■ <^ 0> 



o {— 
J. O 

o H 



Sftfl 



1 • l-i s 

Hi- 



;£S3ss2i?32253S£i55222sSSs£is 
i 5' I S i p s i £ I 3 3 £ S 3 a 2 3 1" 3 2 i 1 5" 5' j f 2" 2" 

; s" = s" s" s c" a : 2 i k s s" ^' s" S ~ s s a' s s a' s" s s a s 






:3(S3S: 



::t:s!ss 



=353212*2 = 



ii 



I i 

Ii !j 
el i 



_ ^ * 



■J2 



J||l 



in] 



:;j:n!sn3!J3!!33J3::!::: 



2555 = 2a32itita3aS22 3.2 21 = =-2S.2 = 
-' *■*-•« i =" g a a a a' a' s" s a a' a a a a s =' aa a •■ 



S a 3 S a a a a a 3 a a a 1 1 1 f I § | § 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 



:3Saa » 



-i 

1 



SS2s;2832SS = = = s = = = = Ss2*3 525352 
■* * -' * a" i i =" a' a' a' a' a' a' a' a' a" a' a" a" a" =' i i = " -' 



; a a s 5 J a, s 2 2. 2 3 § H i a 2 1 2 3 3, a 5 a 5 5 3 
I 2 5 3 2. 5 =. S 3 5 3 3 5 2 3 2 3? a i i a i 1 5 5 5 2 3 



8 s 3 s a a s I £ 5 S 5 5 5 5 5 S 5 5 5 £ I s a 3. S3 ; 
2 2 2. 3 2 1 E 2 2 3 § 3 5 1 2 i 2 1 i § § 5. S g| j! S j 
5iSSS33S3i;58=JjH23;2s2S222 ; 



Hi 



3 s 2. 2 § 2 2 S. a 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 3 a 2 § 2 2 §225 3 2 



'SSHSSBSSaSISSHMIssllisi?' 



i?.S5225Si2523S22223222S5; 

' • d a - x ; a i a i a a a a a ;.' R ' t - - - z - - - * • 



illlllliiiSiSillllilR 



KtSSSJtS 



56b 



sf 



/ CORRECTED 
SEE ITEM 17 

iff *• v__ 

CALENDAR 







DOCUMtt~~ 



f, . 



MEETING OF 

FINANCE COMMITTEE J(jjy 1 * 1M9 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO **** PRAi, 



PUBLIC LIBHAHV 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1992 - 2:00 P.M. ROOM 228, CITY HALL 

PRESENT: SUPERVISORS GONZALEZ, MIGDEN, HALLINAN 

ABSENT: SUPERVISOR GONZALEZ - ITEM 12 

CLERK: GAIL JOHNSON 

NOTE: Copies of the Budget Analyst's Report will be available for review on the 

counter in the Office of the Clerk of the Board, Room 235, City Hall, 
10:00 a.m., the date of the meeting. 

CONSENT CALENDAR 

1. All matters listed hereunder constitute a Consent Calendar, are considered to be 
routine by the Finance Committee, and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote 
of the Committee. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a 
member of the Committee or a member of the public so requests, in which event the 
matter shall be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered as a separate 
item. 

a. File 25-92-19 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that security services at the San Francisco Zoo can be 
practically performed by private contractor for lower cost than similar work 
services performed by City and County employees. (Recreation and Park 
Department) 

b. File 25-92-20 . [Contracting Out City Services] Resolution concurring with the 
Controller's certification that Budget Analyst Services can be practically performed 
by private contractor for lower cost than similar work services performed by City 
and County employees. (Clerk of the Board) 

c. File 25-92-21 . [Contract Prop J - Paratransit Services] Resolution finding that it is 
economical for the Public Utilities Commission to contract for paratransit services 
in accordance with Charter Sect 8.300-1. (Public Utilities Commission) 

d. File 38-92-17 . [Gift] Resolution accepting a gift from the Business Community of 
San Francisco of artistic painting services valued at $24,000 for the decorative 
painting of temporary plywood surfaces in and adjacent to the main rotunda of San 
Francisco City Hall. (Supervisor Conroy) 

e. File 38-92-18 . [Acceptance of Gift] Resolution accepting one gift valued at $10,000 
from True North Foundation for use by the Recreation and Park Department for the 
Park Maintenance Fund. (Recreation and Park Department) 



f. File 61-92-2 . [Contract Award Extension] Resolution approving an extension of time 
of seventy-six additional calendar days to award Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1039-R Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility Geneva Site - Maintenance Building 
Paint Booth Fan Modification. (Public Utilities Commission) 

g. File 61-92-3 . [Contract Award Extension] Resolution approving an extension of time 
of one hundred and fourteen days to award Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1035-R Kirkland Motor Coach Facility - security fencing & gates. (Public 
Utilities Commission) 

h. File 101-90-77.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Public 
Utilities Commission, in the amount $167,243, for security fencing and gates for 
Municipal Railway Contract No. MR-1035-R, Kirkland Motor Coach Facility. 
(Public Utilities Commission) 

i. File 148-91-8.1 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, 
Department of Public Works, in an amount totalling $1,949,600, ($1,647,600, 
Resolution No. 575-91 and $275,000 Resolution No. 559-91), for consultant services 
for planning and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway Replacement 
Project (Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., Contractors). (Department of 
Public Works) 

j. File 133-90-1.5 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Chief 
Administrative Officer - Solid Waste Management Program, in the amount of 
$80,000, to purchase a chipper/shredder, for services of other departments to 
develop and enhance recycling and composting programs (Recreation and Park 
Department, Contractor). (Chief Administrative Officer) 

k. File 133-90-1.6 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Chief 
Administrative Officer - Solid Waste Management Program, in the amount of 
$50,000, for consultant services - Senior Environmental Corps Members, for waste 
reduction assistance and training for large quantity generators. (Chief 
Administrative Officer) 

1. File 57-91-2.4 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Chief 

Administrative Officer/Solid Waste Management Program, in the amount of $2,000, 
for graphic design services to develop Student Recycling Handbook (Nancy Horn, 
Graphic, contractor). (Chief Administrative Officer) 

m. File 79-91-2.3 . [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, Mayor's 
Office of Economic Planning and Development, in the amount of $518,340, from the 
Homeless Program Pool, from the 1991 and 1992 Community Development Block 
Grant Program for Alcohol Drop-In center at 39 Fell Street operated by Chemical 
Awareness and Treatment Services. (Mayor's Office of Economic Planning & 
Development) 

n. File 150-92-2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Recreation and 

Park Department to retroactively apply for a grant in the amount of up to $500,000 
from Department of Boating and Waterways for Pier 54 public boat launching ramp; 
waiving indirect costs. (Supervisor Migden) 

ACTION: Items d, e, f, g and i removed from Consent Calendar. Remainder of 
Consent Calendar recommended. 

Item Id, File 38-92-17. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 



Item le, File 38-92-18. Tabled. 

Item If, File 61-92-2. Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as 
amended. New title: "Approving an extension of time of forty-six 
additional calendar days to award Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1039-R Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility Geneva Site - 
Maintenance Building Paint Booth Fan Modification." 

Item lg, File 61-92-3. Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as 
amended. New title: "Approving an extension of time of eighty-four days 
to award Municipal Railway Contract No. MR-1035-R Kirkland Motor 
Coach Facility - security fencing & gates." 

Item li, File 148-91-8.1. Release of $1,624,625 recommended. Filed. 

REGULAR CALENDAR 

2. File 102-92-1 . [Interim Annual Salary Ordinance] Interim Annual Salary Ordinance 
for Fiscal Year 1992-93. (Civil Service Commission) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. 

3. File 101-92-1 . [Interim Annual Appropriation] Interim Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance for Fiscal Year 1992-93. (Controller) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

4. File 170-92-4 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: to provide loans or grants for the seismic strengthening of 
unreinforced masonry buildings for affordable housing and market-rate residential 
and commercial purposes; that the estimated cost of three hundred-fifty million 
dollars ($350,000,000) for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be 
paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness: providing, that no more than 
thirty-five million dollars ($35,000,000) of said authorization shall be sold in any one 
fiscal year; authorizing carry over of authorized indebtedness to subsequent fiscal 
years. (Supervisors Hsieh, Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 6/3/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



5. File 170-92-5 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of correctional facilities, to 
replace the existing San Bruno Jail facilities, including replacement, housing, 
associated health and safety improvements and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $158,100,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and 
County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

6. File 170-92-6 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of long term care facilities, 
including replacement of Laguna Honda Hospital facilities, improvements to existing 
Laguna Honda Hospital structures, and related acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the 
estimated cost of $548,400,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too 
great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and 
County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor 
Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Tabled. 

7. File 170-92-7 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of a Juvenile Justice 
Complex, including health and safety improvements, asbestos management, disabled 
access and structural and security improvements to the existing Youth Guidance 
Center and Juvenile Hall, a new juvenile Justice Complex and community based 
facilities, that the estimated cost of $78,900,000 for said municipal improvements is 
and will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of 
said City and County and will require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. 
(Supervisor Kennedy) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Tabled. 



8. File 170-92-8 . [General Obligation Bonds] Resolution determining and declaring that 
the public interest and necessity demand the acquisition, construction or 
reconstruction by the City and County of San Francisco of the following municipal 
improvements, to wit: construction and reconstruction of Fire Department facilities, 
including seismic strengthening, asbestos abatement, disabled access, separate 
bathroom and changing areas for male and female firefighters improvements to the 
auxiliary water supply system and related acquisition, construction or reconstruction 
necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of 
$97,000,000 for said municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out 
of the ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will require 
the incurring of a bonded indebtedness. (Supervisor Conroy) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Determining and declaring that the public interest and necessity 
demand the acquisition, construction or reconstruction by the City and 
County of San Francisco of the following municipal improvements, to wit: 
construction and reconstruction of Fire Department facilities, including 
seismic strengthening, asbestos abatement, disabled access, separate 
bathroom and changing areas for male and female firefighters and related 
acquisition, construction or reconstruction necessary or convenient for the 
foregoing purposes, that the estimated cost of $40,800,000 for said 
municipal improvements is and will be too great to be paid out of the 
ordinary annual income and revenue of said City and County and will 
require the incurring of a bonded indebtedness." 

9. File 100-92-3 . Hearing to consider the Joint Report on the anticipated revenue 
shortfall in the Fiscal Year 1992-93 General Fund Budget. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

(Cont'd from 6/3/92) 

ACTION: Filed. 

10. File 224-92-1 . Hearing to consider the effects of budget cuts on the small business 
community. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Filed. 

11. File 64-92-7 . [Extension of Lease] Resolution authorizing extension of 
month-to-month rental agreement and lease of real property required by the Public 
Utilities Commission at 100 McAllister Street from the University of California, 
Hasting College of Law. (Real Estate Department) 

(Cont'd from 6/3/92) 

ACTION: Amended on line 12, after "405" by adding "and", and by deleting "and 
409". Further amended on line 13, by replacing "$2,223.00" with 
"$1,273.00", and on line 18, by replacing "$26,676.00" with "$15,276.00". 
Recommended as amended. 



12. File 198-92-1 . [Conservatorship Investigation Fees] Resolution increasing 
assessments for investigations in conservatorship cases as provided in Probate Code 
Section 1851.5 from $210 to $384. (Superior Court) 

(Cont'd from 6/3/92) 

ACTION: Amended on page 1, line 17, and on page 2, line 3, by replacing "$384.00" 
with "$420.00". Recommended as amended. New title: "Increasing 
assessments for investigations in conservatorship cases as provided in 
Probate Code Section 1851.5 from $210 to $420." 

13. File 192-92-2 . [Grant - State Funds] Resolution authorizing the Executive Director 
of the Department of Parking and Traffic and the Director of Public Works to apply 
for, accept and expend $450,000 of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 
Funds for bicycle/pedestrian projects foregoing reimbursement of indirect costs. 
(Department of Parking and Traffic) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 

"Authorizing the Director of Public Works to apply for, accept and expend 
$225,000 of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funds for 
pedestrian projects foregoing reimbursement of indirect costs." 
(Supervisor Migden Dissenting) 

14. File 123-92-1 . [Excavation Fees] Ordinance amending Public Works Code, by 
amending Sections 352, 353, 368 and 374 and adding Sections 352.1 and 352.2, to 
authorize the Director of Public Works to set schedules of fees and to collect fees to 
recover costs of administering and regulating permitted excavations. (Department 
of Public Works) 

(Cont'd from 5/27/92) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

15. File 100-91-1.11. [Release of Funds] Requesting release of reserved funds, District 
Attorney, in the amount of $40,000 for hiring policy of Assistant District Attorneys. 
(District Attorney) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Release of $27,508 recommended. Filed. (Supervisor 
Migden Dissenting) 

16. File 101-91-72 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $123,240, Mayor's 
Office of Economic Planning and Development, for permanent salaries and related 
mandatory fringe benefits. RO #91223 (Controller) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

17. File 101-91-74 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $64,763,480, 
Department of Public Works, for various improvement project and $236,520 for 
various program project budget. RO #91238 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Appropriating $58,623,480, Department of Public Works, for 
various improvement projects and $236,520 for various program project 
budgets; placing $45,778,418 on reserve." 



18. File 101-91-75 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $6,220,350, Police 
Department, for facilities maintenance projects (various Police facilities 
improvement). RO #91239 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Appropriating $6,220,350, Police Department, for facilities 
maintenance projects (various Police facilities improvements); placing 
$4,641,107 on reserve." 

19. File 101-91-76 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $423,480, Public 
Library, for various capital improvement project. RO #91242 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 
title: "Appropriating $423,480, Public Library, for various capital 
improvement projects; providing for ratification of action previously 
taken." 

20. File 10 1-91-77 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $972,000, 
Department of Public Health - DMSF, for capital improvement project 
(miscellaneous project services). RO #91243 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole adopted. Recommended as amended. New 

title: "Appropriating $972,000, Department of Public Health - DMSF, for 
capital improvement project (miscellaneous project services); placing 
$972,000 on reserve." 

21. File 101-91-7S . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $22,266, 
Department of Public Works, for capital improvement project (various locations, 
traffic signal installations) and certifying $22,266 from capital improvement 
project (various locations - traffic signal installations), to cover overage above ten 
percent (10%) of contracted amount pursuant to provisions of Charter Section 
7.203; providing for ratification of action previously taken. RO #91246 (Controller) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

22. File 101-91-79 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $330,000, 
Department of Public Works, for program project budget (repair and demolition). 
RO #91247 (Controller) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $286,000, Department of Public Works, for program 
project budget (repair and demolition)." 

23. File 101-91-80 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $35,000, District 
Attorney, for litigation expenses. RO #91248 (Controller) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

24. File 101-91-82 . [Government Funding] Ordinance appropriating $65,000,000 for 
capital improvement project (Islais Creek Transport Storage) Public Works, for 
Fiscal Year 1991-92. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Amended. (See file for details.) Recommended as amended. New title: 
"Appropriating $65,000,000 for capital improvement project (Islais Creek 
Transport Storage) Public Works, for Fiscal Year 1991-92; placing 
$61,930,000 on reserve." 



25. File 82-92-5 . [Grant of Easement] Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of an 
easement to the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco; 
and adopting findings pursuant to City Planning Code Section 101.1. (Real Estate 
Department) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

26. File 124-92-3 . [Parking Meter Rates] Ordinance amending Traffic Code by 
amending Section 213, to increase the rates for parking meters within parking 
meter areas numbers 2, 3, and 4. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Amendment of the Whole bearing same title adopted. Continued to June 
25, 1992. 

27. File 124-92-4 . [Parking Meter Rates] Ordinance amending Traffic Code by 
amending Sections 200, 202. A, 203.2, 203.3 and 203.4, to increase the rates for 
parking meters within parking meter areas numbers 2, 3, and 4. (Department of 
Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Continued to June 25, 1992. 

28. File 124-92-5 . [Parking Meter Rates] Ordinance amending Traffic Code by 
amending Section 210, to increase the rates for parking meters within parking 
meter areas numbers 2, 3, and 4. (Department of Parking and Traffic) 

ACTION: Recommended. 

29. File 161-92-2 . [Redevelopment Agency Budget] Resolution approving an Interim 
Budget of the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco for 
fiscal year 1992-93. (Supervisor Gonzalez) 

ACTION: Recommended. 



IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE CHAIR TO CONTINUE THE FOLLOWING ITEM 
(FILE 115-92-9) TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR AFTER HEARING PUBLIC 
TESTIMONY : 

30. File 115-92-9 . [Illegal Unit Amnesty] Ordinance amending Part II, Chapter II of the 
San Francisco Municipal Code (City Planning Code) by adding Section 207.3 to 
establish a 24-month amnesty period within which one dwelling unit in addition to 
those permitted in any zoning district (which unit was constructed prior to January 
1, 1992 without benefit of permit) may be legalized; amending Section 161 to 
exempt legalized units from the parking requirements, and by adding Section 369 to 
impose a registration penalty; amending Article 37 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code (Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance); 
amending Section 37.2 to make all legalized units subject to rent board jurisdiction; 
amending Part n, Chapter XII of the San Francisco Municipal Code (Housing Code) 
by amending Section 353 to require an owner of a residential structure to obtain a 
physical inspection of the property prior to sale to determine the number of 
dwelling units; amending Section 503 to provide that ceiling heights for legalized 
units are only required to meet the minimum requirements mandated by State Law; 
amending Part II, Chapter I of San Francisco Municipal Code (Building Code) by 
adding Section 109 to allow for exemptions from certain code requirements; 
amending Section 202 to provide that if a density violation is discovered after the 
expiration of the amnesty period the property owner shall be liable for the full 
costs incurred by the City in detecting and abating the violation, and amending 
Section 332.3 to exempt units legalized during the amnesty period from payment of 
the work without permit investigation fee; adopting findings pursuant to Planning 
Code Section 101.1. (Supervisor Hallinan) 

ACTION: Hearing held. Continued to the Call of the Chair. 



CITY AND COUNTY 



"Public Lihrani, "Documents <Dcvt. 



xs 




OF SA 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1025 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 • TELEPHONE (415) 554-7642 



June 8, 1992 



TO: 



/// 

Finance Committee 



FROM: Budget Analyst ^cco^^/^on"; 

SUBJECT: June 10, 1992 Finance Committee Meeting 
Item la - File 25-92-19 



L ' w - - S DEPT 

! 



-»■>" .aiCQi 



Department: 
Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Recreation and Park Department 

Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that certain services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar services performed by the City and County of San 
Francisco. 



Security Services at the Zoo 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
security services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



Citv Operated Service Costs 

Salary 

Holiday Pay and Night Duty 
Fringe Benefits 
Total 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Saving s 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 

$213,517 
13,659 
60,69 5 

$287,871 

152,217 
$135,654 



Highest 

Salary 

Step 

$252,283 
16,136 
69,252 

$337,671 

152.217 
$185,454 



Memo to Finance Committee 



June 10, 1992 



Comments: 1. Security Services were first certified as required by 

Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1982 and have been continuously 
provided by an outside contractor since then. 

2. The Recreation and Park Department is currently in the 
process of selecting a security guard service because the 
existing contract expires on June 30,1992. On May 28, 1992, 
7 potential contractors responding to a request for proposal 
RFP were given an on-site walkthrough. The final bids 
were due on June 5, 1992. The final selection will follow 
pending review of the bids. 

3. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including MBE/WBE status is 
attached. 

4. The estimated Contracted Service Cost for 1992-93 is 
based on the 1991-92 cost of the current guard service 
adjusted by 60 cents per hour to reflect the comparable rates 
for guard services in the Bay Area. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



JUN 8 '92 12:50 FROM ANNEX PAGE . 002 

CHARTS? 8.300-1 (Proposition J) QUESTtONNAiRF 

Oepartsient ** c & P«rk - SF Zoo _ 

Contract Services Z^e&Ekj&jL : -i^^c/^^- 

For the term starting approximately : • Quty f fffl through O^/W 3& /?9 \ 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

No one 

2) Nunber of City employees laid off as a result of contracting out? 

No oae 

3) Explain dlsposJton of employees if they were not laid off. 

K/A 

4> What percent of a City e^iloyee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

Nbafc 

5) How long have the services been contracted out? 

7/1/82 

6) When was the first fiscal y^zr for a Proposition certification? 

1982 

7) How wiTl contract services aeet the goa-ls of your HBE/KBE Action Plan? 



Department Representative 



Telephone 
Y:ac(85GEN60) \ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item lb - File 25-92-20 

The attached reports of the Controller relates to the proposed resolution 
concurring with the Controller's certification of costs required by Charter Section 
8,300-1 (Proposition J) that Budget Analyst services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by 
City employees. 

The Controller has certified that Budget Analyst services are provided at a 
lower cost by the current private contractor than if the work were performed by City 
employees. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment 
Page 1 of 3 

r City and County of San Francisco Office of Controller 




May 18, 1992 

Honorable Board of Supervisors 
City and County of San Francisco 
City Hall, Room 235 
San Francisco, CA 94102 

Attention: John L. Taylor, Clerk of the Board 

Re: Contracting for Budget Analyst Services 

Dear Mr. Taylor: 

The cost information and supplementary data provided by your office 
on the proposed contract for Budget Analyst services has been 
reviewed by my staff. 

If the services are performed by the contractor at the proposed 
contract price, it would appear that the services can practically 
be performed at a lower cost than if the work were performed by 
City employees at presently budgeted levels. Our opinion is based 
on information provided that indicates that the comparable level of 
service would be provided by 16 full-time equivalent professional 
City employees. A statement of projected cost and estimated 
savings for the year commencing July 1, 1992 is attached for your 
review. 

The requirements of Charter Section 8.300-1 relative to the 
Controller's findings that work can practically be performed by 
contract for the year 1992-93 have been satisfied. To complete 
requirements of the Charter, it will be necessary for your 
Department to secure approval by resolution of the Board of 
Supervisors before formal contract documents can be certified by my 
office. 



Sincerely, 




Edward Harrington 
Controller 

Enclosure 

cc: Thornton C. Bunch ERD, Mayor 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst Board of Supervisors 

Marvin Geistlinger, Purchaser 



Room 109, City Hall San Francisco 94102 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst Services 

Comparative Costs of City and Contractual Services 

1992-93 



Low - Salary costs are calculated on incremental Steps 1 and 2. 
High - Salary costs are calculated on incremental Step 5. 



Attachment 
Page 2 of 3 



LOW HIGH 



City Services 








Personnel Services 
Employee Benefits 

Other Expenses 




$954,479 

$227,344 

$1,181,823 

$74,126 


$1,131,670 

$261,176 

$1,392,846 

$74,126 


Projected Costs of City Services 




$1,255,949 


$1,466,972 


Contractual Services 

Prior Year's Contract 

92-93 Civil Service Commission 

Salary Survey Recommendation 

Of 3/1 6/92 Average 8.98% 

92-93 Contract 


$1,153,290 
$103,565 


$1,256,855 


$1,256,855 


Estimated Savings 




($906) 


$210,117 



Attachment 
Page 3 of 3 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department Board of Supervisors 

Contract Services Budget ANalyst 

Time Perio d July 1. 1992 through June 30, 1QQ? 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out? 

Bureau of the Budget 

2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 

out? __ 

None 



3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

Two were transferred to other City departments; balance 
resigned in order to be hired by the contractor. 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 
contracted out? 

All Bureau of the Budget positions were full-time 

5) How long have services been contracted out? 

13 years, since January 1, 1979. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

FY 1978-79 

7) How will contract services meet the goals of your MBE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

Contract services are consistent with the Board of Supervisors 
Department MBE/WBE Action Plan. 



John Taylor 

Department Representative 

Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 
(Type Name, Title) 
55A-5184 

Telephone 
cxlquesp j 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item lc - File 25-92-21 

Department: Public Utilities Commission 



Item: 



Services to 
be Performed: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Resolution concurring with Controller's Certification of 
Costs required by Charter Section 8.300-1 (Proposition J) 
that certain services can continue to be practically 
performed by a private contractor for a lower cost than 
similar services performed by the City and County of San 
Francisco. 



Paratransit Services 

The Controller has determined that contracting for these 
paratransit services in fiscal year 1992-93 would result in 
estimated savings as follows: 



City Operated Service Costs 

Salaries and Fringe Benefits 
Capital Depreciation 
Operating Expenses 
Total 

Contracted Service Cost 

Estimated Saving s 



Lowest 

Salary 

Step 


Highest 

Salary 

Step 


$7,594,607 
719,125 
646.614 

$8,960,346 


$8,404,867 
719,125 
674.163 

$9,798,155 


7.982.672 


7.982.672 



$977,674 $1,815,483 



1. Paratransit services were first certified as required by 
Charter Section 8.300-1 in 1984 and have been provided by an 
outside contractor since 1979. 

2. The current contract with Cerenio Management Group 
extends from October 1, 1991 through June 30, 1996. 
Cerenio Management Group is a City-certified MBE and 
WBE. 

3. Ms. Annette Williams, the Manager of the Elderly and 
Handicapped Programs for MUNI, reports that the 
contracted service cost of $7,982,672 is based on Cerenio 
Management Group's estimation of its fiscal year 1992-93 
costs of providing paratransit services. Ms. Williams also 
notes that the analysis includes the assumption that the 
continued planned expansion of paratransit services 
during 1992-93 will occur. This planned expansion is made 
possible through funding from the half cent sales tax 



BOARD OF SUPERVLSORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



increment (Proposition B) approved by the voters in 
November, 1989. 

The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is budgeting for a 
maximum of 871,114 passenger trips of paratransit service 
to approximately 10,700 disabled clients for fiscal year 1992- 
93, which is a 17.7 percent increase over the approximately 
740,000 passenger trips provided in fiscal year 1991-92. 

4. The Controller's supplemental questionnaire with the 
Department's responses, including the MBE/WBE status of 
this contract, is attached. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Charter 8.300-1 (Proposition J) Questionnaire 

Department PUC/Municipal Railway 

Contract Services Paratransit 



Time Period 07/01/92 - 06/30/93 

1) Who performed services prior to contracting out' 
Service has always been contracted out. 



2) Number of City employees laid off as a result of contracting 
out? 

None 

3) Explain disposition of employees if they were laid off. 

N/A 

4) What percent of City employee's time is spent on services to be 

contracted out? 

20% of one full time equivalent contract Administrator plus 
3 hours per month of a 1630 Accountant. 

5) Kow long have services been contracted out? 

Twelve (12) years. 

6) What was the first fiscal year for a Proposition J 
Certification? 

Fiscal Year - 1983/84 

7) Kow will contract services meet the goals of your MEE/WBE 
Action Plan? 

The Broker services are currently performed by an MBE/WBE 
firm and not less than 30% of all service is provided by 
MBE/WBE firm(s) . 




Department Representative 

Annette M. Williams, Manager, Accessible Services Program 

(Type "Name, Title) 

(415) 923-6142 

Telephone 

cxlquesp j 



in 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item Id - File 38-92-17 



Item: 



Resolution authorizing the City to accept a gift from the 
Business Community of San Francisco of artistic painting 
services valued at approximately $24,000 for the decorative 
painting of temporary plywood surfaces in the main rotunda 
of the San Francisco City Hall. 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



After the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October, 1989, 
temporary shoring was installed to stabilize the stone 
surfaces in the rotunda and various other locations through 
out City Hall. The City has subsequently installed plywood 
sheathing over the exposed temporary shoring in and around 
the rotunda. 

The Business Community of San Francisco has offered to pay 
for an artist to paint the plywood sheathing. The donation 
would include the designing process and the execution of the 
design, in addition to labor and material costs. 

1. According to Mr. Keith Grand the Risk Manager for the 
City, the City should require, that before work is started, the 
organization performing the work should be required to 
ensure that liability and workers compensation insurance is 
in force. According to Mr. Grand, such insurance should be 
equivalent to what other contractors hired by the City would 
be required to provide. 

2. The Budget Analyst was unable to determine that the 
private funding or services have been secured and what 
organization, if any, has donated funds or services for the 
project. Because of the uncertainty of the donation, the 
Budget Analyst recommends that the proposed resolution be 
continued until this gift has been secured. 

Amend the proposed resolution in regards to providing proof 
of proper liability and workers compensation insurance. 

Continue the proposed resolution to the call of the Chair. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item le - File 38-92-18 

Departments: Recreation and Park Department 



Item: 



Resolution accepting a gift from the True North Foundation for 
the Park Maintenance Fund 



Amount: $10,000 

Source of Funds: True North Foundation 

Description: According to Mr. Tim Lilliquist of the Recreation and Park 

Department, this gift is intended for the Friends of Recreation 
and Park, not for the City. 

Comment: Should the City have a project that the Friends of Recreation 

and Park would support with the subject gift funds, the Board 
of Supervisors would be requested to accept the gift of the 
Friends of Recreation and Park at such time for the specific 
project. 

Recommendation: Table the proposed legislation. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



12 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Item If- File 61-92-2 
Department: 

Item: 
Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution granting an extension of time of 76 additional 
calendar days for awarding Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1039-R Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility Geneva Site - 
Maintenance Building Paint Booth Fans Modification. 

On January 27, 1992, the Municipal Railway received and 
opened bids for the modification of the paint booth fans in 
MUNI's Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility, Geneva Site, 
Maintenance Building. 

On May 12, 1992, the Public Utilities Commission awarded 
this contract in the amount of $43,450 to E. Mitchell, Inc. of 
San Francisco, pending the firm's certification as a WBE and 
LBE by the City's Human Rights Commission. 

The Public Utilities Commission's MBE/WBE/LBE Contracts 
Compliance Office was unable to render a determination as 
to the responsiveness of E. Mitchell, Inc's. certification as a 
WBE/LBE within 60 days of the receipt of bid. Because this is 
a MBE/WBE/LBE question, the time limit for awarding the 
contract is 60 days rather than 30 days. Therefore the Public 
Utilities Commission is requesting that the Board of 
Supervisors, in accordance with Section 6.1 of the 
Administrative Code, extend the time to award MUNI 
Contract No. MR-1039-R Curtis E. Green Light Rail Facility 
Geneva Site - Maintenance Building Paint Booth Fans 
Modification by 76 days calendar days. 

1. However, according to Mr. Arnold Baker of the Public 
Utilities Commission, E. Mitchell, Inc. has been certified by 
the Human Rights Commission as a WBE/LBE. 

2. The time between the opening of the bids, January 27, 1992 
and the awarding of contract MR-1039-R on May 12, 1992 is 
106 calendar days, less the 60 days allowed for 
MBE/WBE/LBE determination, leaves 46 days. Therefore, the 
proposed resolution should be amended to extend the time to 
award the contract by 46 calendar days, to May 12, 1992. 

Amend the proposed resolution by amending line 22, to read 
"hereby approves an extension of time to May 12, 1992, forty- 
six additional calendar days." Approve the amended 
resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



13 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Item lg - File 61-92-3 



Department: 



Item: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Resolution granting extension of time of 114 additional 
calendar days for awarding Municipal Railway Contract No. 
MR-1035-R Kirkland Motor Coach Facility, Security Fencing 
and Gates. 

On December 20, 1991, the Municipal Railway received and 
opened bids for security fencing and gates at the Kirkland 
Motor Coach Facility. 

On May 12, 1992, the Public Utilities Commission awarded 
this contract in the amount of $387,000 to Angotti & 
Reilly/T.E. Joo, a Joint Venture. 

In order to respond to bid protests received, the Public 
Utilities Commission was unable to award the contract 
within 30 days of the receipt of bid. Therefore, the Public 
Utilities Commission is requesting that the Board of 
Supervisors, in accordance with Section 6.1 of the 
Administrative Code, extend the time to award MUNI 
Contract No. MR-1035-R Kirkland Motor Coach Facility, 
Security Fencing and Gates. 

1. The time period between the opening of the bids on 
December 20, 1991 and the awarding of the contract on May 
12, 1992 is 114 calendar days less the 30 days allowed for 
resolving bid protests, which leaves 84 days. However, the 
proposed resolution requests an extension of 114 days. The 
proposed resolution should be amended so that the length of 
the extension is 84 days. 

2. The proposed resolution to extend the awarding of contract 
MR-1035-R, does not specify the date applicable to the end of 
that extension, which when amended to 84 calendar days is 
May 12, 1992. The proposed resolution should therefore be 
amended to specify the date of May 12, 1992. 

Amend the proposed resolution by amending line 21, to read 
"hereby approves an extension of time to May 12, 1992, eight- 
four additional calendar days." Approve the amended 
resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



14 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item lh- File 101-90-77.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount : 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Municipal Railway (MUNI) 

Release of reserved funds for security fencing and gates for 
the Kirkland Motor Coach Facility, Municipal Railway 
Contract No. MR - 1035 - R, Kirkland Motor Coach Facility. 

$167,243 

Transportation Development Act Grant 

On March 20, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved a 
supplemental appropriation of $167,243 of FY 1986-87 State 
Transportation Development Act (TDA) grant funds for the 
purpose of installing a security fence and gates at the Muni's 
Kirkland Yard (Ordinance #131-91). The Finance Committee 
placed this appropriation on reserve pending information on 
the identity of the contractors and their MBE/WBE status. 

MUNI is now requesting the release of $167,243 to proceed 
with the awarding of the contract for the Kirkland Motor 
Coach Facility, Security Fencing and Gates (MUNI Contract 
# MR-1035-R). 

A total of six bids were received in response to the Invitation 
to Bid. The bids for Contract Number MR-1035-R were 
opened on December 20, 1991. The following firms submitted 
bids. 



Name of Firm 


Bid Amount 


Angotti & Reilly/T.E. Joo 


$387,000 


A Joint Venture 




San Luis Construction 


395,000 


Echo West and Hok Construction 


406,000 


A Joint Venture 




Cuevas-Mannion Construction 


449,000 


Fence Factory 


459,549 


A. Ruiz Construction 


529,227 



Angotti & Reilly/T.E. Joo was selected as the lowest bidder 
with a bid of $387,000. Angotti & Reilly/T.E. Joo is a joint 
venture with T.E. Joo being certified by the Human Rights 
Commission as a MBE. 

Comments: 1. Kirkland Yard is a MUNI operating facility located in the 

Fisherman's Wharf area at North Point and Stockton Streets. 
The work to be accomplished consists of installing a ten-foot 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1^ 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

high perimeter steel picket fence and five electrically 
operated roll up doors. According to Ms. Gail Bloom of the 
PUC, once fully installed, the fencing will reduce the 
incidence of vandalism of MUNI vehicles parked in the 
Kirkland Yard. 

2. According to Mr. Arnold Baker of the PUC, T.E. Joo will 
have 35 percent ($135,450) participation on this project. 

3. The source of the remaining $219,757, ($387,000 total 
contract amount less $167,243 reserved funds) required for 
the project would be Federal Urban Mass Transportation 
Administration (UMTA) funds that have previously been 
approved by the Board of Supervisors for security purposes. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve funds in the amount 
of $167,243. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Item li 



File 148-91-8.1 



Department: 
Item: 

Amounts: 

Source of Funds: 
Description 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Release of reserved funds for consultant services for 
planning and environmental work for the Embarcadero 
Freeway Replacement Project. 

$1,674,600 (from Resolution 575-91) 
275.400 (from Resolution 559-91) 
$1,950,000 Total 

Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds 
and State Highway Funds 

On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Director of Public Works to apply for $58.5 million in Federal 
Highway Administration Emergency Relief Funds for the 
planning, design and construction of a subsurface 
alternative to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to accept and 
expend $4,593,600 of said funds for planning and 
environmental work for the project. In addition, the Board 
reserved $1,674,600 of the $4,593,600 for various contractual 
services related to the planning and environmental work, 
pending provision of contractual details, hourly rates and the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors (File 148-91-8). 

On June 12, 1991, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Director of Public Works to apply for $11.0 million in State 
Highway Funds for the planning, design and construction of 
a subsurface alternative to the Embarcadero Freeway, and to 
accept and expend $756,400 of said funds for planning and 
environmental work for the project. In addition, the Board 
reserved $275,400 of the $756,400 for various contractual 
services related to the planning and environmental work, 
pending provision of contractual hours, hourly rates and the 
MBE/WBE/LBE status of the contractors (File 148-91-9). 
Therefore, the total amount of funds on reserve for planning 
and environmental work for the Embarcadero Freeway 
Replacement Project is $1,950,000 ($1,674,600 plus $275,400). 

The DPW is now requesting a release of the entire amount of 
$1,950,000 of reserved funds. DPW has selected the 
consulting firm of Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, 
Inc. (PBQ&D) to provide the contractual services related to 
the planning and environmental work for the Embarcadero 
Freeway Replacement Project at a cost of $1,476,932. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



The DPW is requesting that the full amount of reserved funds 
be released so that the remaining balance of $473,068 
($1,950,000 less $1,476,932) can be spent for contingencies. 
This would result in a contingency of over 32 percent. 

Before DPW accepted the PBQ&D proposal, DPW had 
budgeted the following for various contractual services: 



Environmental Assessment 


$600,000 


Traffic Study 


250,000 


Hazardous Waste Testing 


500,000 


Archaeology Study 


250,000 


Soil Study 


350.000 


Total Contractual Services 


$1,950,000 


Budget 





PBQ&D's proposal for the above-named contractual services 
included the following proposed cost distribution by PBQ&D 
and its subcontractors (including their DBE, MBE, WBE 
status): 

Dollar Amount Percentage of 
Name of Firm of Work Contract 



PBQ&D 


$611,549 


41.4 


Douglas Wright Consulting 


95,748 


6.5 


Aileen C. Hernandez Associates 






(DBE/MBE/WBE) 


67,575 


4.5 


Public Affairs Management 






(DBE/WBE) 


152,002 


10.3 


Finger & Moy (DBE/MBE) 


72,025 


4.9 


Baseline Environmental Consulting 






(DBE/WBE) 


129,575 


8.8 


Jonas & Associates (DBE/MBE) 


73,947 


5.0 


E.M. Rose & Associates (DBE/MBE) 


62,484 


4.2 


Harding Lawson Associates 


63,214 


4.3 


Wilson, Ihrig & Associates 


58,939 


4.0 


Korve Engineering 


56,484 


3.8 


Document Production 






(DBE Printer) 


33.390 


2.3 


Total i 


51,476,932 


100.0 



As noted above, of the total of $1,476,932 in contractual costs, 
$590,998 or 40 percent of the project will be done by 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)/MBE/WBE firms. 

PBQ&D's proposal notes that the contractors involved in this 
project will devote a total of 16,808 hours to the project and 
that the hourly rates charged by the contractors range from 
$12.00 to $61.25. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

1ft 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



The estimated budget for the Planning Phase (Environmental 
and Preliminary Engineering) for the Embarcadero Freeway 
Replacement Project was as follows: 

City Departments Amount 

Department of Public Works $2,900,000 

Department of Parking & Traffic 250,000 

City Planning Department 220,000 

City Attorney 5,000 

Real Estate Department 35,000 

Bureau of Environmental 40,000 
Regulation & Management (DPW) 

Consultant 

PBQ&D 1,500,000 

Contingencies 450.000 1.950.000 

Total $5,400,000 



Comments: 1. Ms. Sara Pickus, Project Manager at the DPW, reports that 

the requested funds are needed to do the environmental 
impact report (EIR) portion of the Embarcadero Freeway 
project, irrespective of whether the City decides to build a 
subsurface or surface road. Ms. Pickus advises that the EIR 
work must be done before construction work can begin, and 
that reports about a large increase in the cost estimates for 
replacing the Embarcadero Freeway only presented the most 
expensive alternative. Ms. Pickus notes that the Chief 
Administrative Officer will be sending a letter to the Board of 
Supervisors clarifying this matter. 

2. Ms. Pickus advises that the amount requested to be 
released for these contractual services and contingencies 
should be $1,950,000 rather than $1,949,600, due to an error in 
the DPW's letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting this 
release of funds. 

3. Ms. Mary Gin Starkweather of the Human Rights 
Commission advises that PBQ&D is not a DBE, but that, as 
previously noted, PBQ&D's DBE subcontractors will 
accomplish 40 percent of the work. Therefore, the Human 
Rights Commission has approved the PBQ&D bid as meeting 
the DBE requirements. 



BOARD OF SU PERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



4. Ms. Pickus reports that the DPW has decided to request 
that the Board of Supervisors release the balance of $473,068 
for contingencies rather than for contributions toward 
various City departments' costs toward the Embarcadero 
Freeway replacement project, as the DPW had originally 
requested. The DPW is making this request for the release of 
the entire $1,950,000 to avoid having to make separate 
requests to the Board in the future. However, the Budget 
Analyst has noted previously that the DPW's proposed 
contingency would represent over 32 percent of the contract 
amount. A 10 percent contingency of the contract amount of 
$1,476,932 would be $147,693, resulting in a total amount of 
$1,624,625. 



Recommendation: Release $1,624,625 as noted above. Continue to reserve 
$325,375. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item li -File 133-90-1.5 



Departments: 



Item: 



Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer, Solid Waste Management 

Program 

Recreation and Park Department 

Requesting release of the reserve on the Solid Waste 
Management Program Budget to purchase a 
chipper/shredder for a proposed Recreation and Park 
Department composting program. 

$80,000 

Refuse Collection and Disposal Fees Impound Account 

The Sanitary Fill Company, a partnership of Sunset 
Scavenger Company and Golden Gate Disposal Company, 
contracts to operate the City's refuse collection center and to 
haul refuse to the landfill site in Altamont. The Refuse 
Collection and Disposal Rate Board requires that the 
Sanitary Fill Company set aside a certain amount of funds 
each year from the refuse collection fees charged to San 
Francisco residents and businesses in an impound account. 
This set-aside of fees is calculated based on the number of 
tons of solid waste collected by the refuse contractors. A 
portion of the impound account is used to finance the City's 
Solid Waste Management Program budget plus other landfill 
related costs. The total 1990-91 budget for the Solid Waste 
Management Program was $2,081,876. 

When approving this budget in August 1990, the Board of 
Supervisors placed a reserve on $80,000 pending an 
evaluation of the equipment to be purchased with the 
$80,000. The Solid Waste Management Program had the 
proposed equipment evaluated as part of its December 1991 
Final Composting Plan prepared by a private consulting firm. 
This Composting Plan recommends the purchase of a Royer 
Model 365 Shredder with Trash-away Conveyer costing 
approximately $80,000. 

With the purchase of the proposed shredder, the Recreation 
and Park Department would initiate a new composting 
operation. The proposed composting operation would compost 
all of the manure and straw generated from the Zoo and the 
Police Horse Stable and other horticultural debris from 
Golden Gate Park. The Department would use currently 
filled positions and owned equipment to haul and load the 
debris into the proposed shredder. The Department estimates 
that the proposed composting program would save at least an 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



21 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Comments: 



estimated $17,600 annually in scavenger fees by recycling the 
shredded and composted Zoo, Park, and Police Stable wastes 
rather than having the wastes hauled away by the 
scavengers. 

1. The Budget Analyst will be reviewing the Recreation and 
Park Department's budget for a reduction of scavenger fees, 
as a result of the proposed new equipment purchase. 

2. The Recreation and Park Department would be responsible 
for the cost of maintaining the proposed Chipper/Shredder. 
Mr. Jim Cooney of the Recreation and Park Department 
estimates that the maintenance cost for the proposed 
equipment would be very low for the first three years of 
operation. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



22 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item Ik - File 133-90-1.6 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Chief Administrative Officer, 
Solid Waste Management Program 

Release of reserved funds for technical consulting assistance 
and training on waste reduction methods in Large Quantity 
Generators (LQG). 

$50,000 

Refuse Collection and Disposal fees Impound Account 

The Board of Supervisors previously placed on reserve a total 
of $325,000 for consultants to perform in the various 
components of the Solid Waste Management Program, (File 
133-90-1). 

Of the total $325,000 of reserved funds, $50,000 was reserved 
pending the selection of contractors and information 
regarding hours, rates and the MBEAVBE status for one 
segment of the Hazardous Waste Management Program. The 
requested funds would be used to provide technical assistance 
related to waste reduction in the LQGs, and provide training 
to operators of LQGs on methods to reduce hazardous waste. 

The Solid Waste Management Program has selected seven 
engineering consultants, as well as the firms of WRITAR, 
PRC Management, and Synergistics Group. The seven 
contracted engineers would provide technical assistance, and 
the firms of WRITAR, PRC Management and Synergistics 
Group would conduct trainings, follow-up audits, manage 
the seven engineers, and conduct outreach to businesses on 
waste reduction methods in Large Quantity Generators. 

The Solid Waste Management Program selected the 
consulting firms of WRITAR, PRC Management, and 
Synergistics Group according to HRC requirements for 
contracts under $10,000 which do not require a Request for 
Proposal (RFP) process. The Solid Waste Management 
Program selected three firms each in the categories of 
Technical Assistance, Waste Reduction Training, and 
Environmental Consulting and sent them Scope of Work 
estimates with a request for bids. The firm with the lowest 
bid in each category was hired. The seven engineering 
contractors responded to advertisements solicited through 
four professional organizations: American Society of Civil 
Engineers; American Institute of Chemical Engineers; 
Society of Women Engineers and; Northern California 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

23 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Council of Black Engineers. Seven applicants responded and 
all seven were hired. 



Budget 



Personal Service Engineers (7) 

Technical Assistance for Waste Reduction 
in LQGs. 



MBE/WBE 
Rate Hours Status 


Total 


$15.00 1,333 


No 


20,000 


WRITAR 

Conduct trainings on waste reduction 
in LQGs 


No 


10,000 


PRC Management 

Technical assistance to engineers 


No 


10,000 


Synergistics Group 

Scheduling, and business outreach 


No 


10.000 


Total 




$50,000 



Comment: 



As noted above, none of the seven engineering contractors 
nor the three consulting firms selected are certified as MBEs 
or WBEs. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF S UPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

24 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Item 11 - File 57-91-2.4 

Department: Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 

Solid Waste Management Program 



Item: 



Amount 



Release of reserved funds for graphic design services to 
develop a Student Recycling Handbook, (Nancy Horn, Graphic 
Designer). 

$2,000 



Source of Funds: Refuse Impound Account 

Description: The Board of Supervisors previously placed on reserve 

$2,000 for the development of a Student Recycling 
Handbook pending submission by the Solid Waste 
Management Program of the selection of a contractor, 
budget, and MBE/WBE status, (File 57-91-2). 

The Solid Waste Management Program has selected 
Nancy Horn, Graphic Designer for their graphic design 
services. Nancy Horn would design and illustrate a 32-page 
student handbook containing background information and 
activities related to recycling. The handbook would be 
distributed free of charge through the Solid Waste 
Management's field trip program for school age children. 

The Solid Waste Management Program selected the 
contractor, Nancy Horn, Graphic Designer, under a 
Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Nancy Horn was one 
of six respondents and was selected based on the quality of 
her work. 



Budget 



Nancv Horn. Graphic Designer 



Rough Layout 
Final Design 
Final Layout 
Total 



$500 

500 

1QQQ 

$2,000 



Comment: 



According to the Human Rights Commission, Nancy Horn is 
not certified with the City as an MBE/WBE. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserve. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



25 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



Item lm 

Department: 

Item: 



File 79-91-2.3 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Mayor's Office of Economic Planning and Development 

Release of reserved funds from the Homeless Assistance 
Program Pool, the 1991 and 1992 Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) Programs for an Alcohol Drop-In 
Center at 39 Fell Street, operated by Chemical Awareness 
and Treatment Services. 

$518,340 

Community Development Block Grant Funds 

On December 8, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved the 
City's 1991 Community Development Block Grant Program 
(File 79-90-4) in an amount of $20,016,923. At the same time, 
the Board of Supervisors placed $200,000 from the 1991 CDBG 
Homeless Assistance Program Pool on reserve for renovation 
costs of homeless shelters. 

On December 9, 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved the 
City's 1992 Community Development Block Grant Program 
(File 79-91-21) in an amount of $20,093,535. At the same time, 
the Board of Supervisors placed $500,000 for the 1992 CDBG 
Homeless Assistance Program Pool on reserve, pending the 
Mayor's Office selection of a site for a proposed drop-in center 
for homeless individuals and providing budget details on this 
project. 

In March, 1992, the Board approved the release of $61,660 
from the $500,000 on reserve from the 1992 CDBG Homeless 
Assistance Program Pool for the Traveler's Aid Transbay 
Outreach Project (File 79-91-2.1), leaving a balance of $438,340 
on reserve. 

In May, 1992, the Board approved the release of $120,000 from 
the $438,340 balance on reserve from the 1992 CDBG 
Homeless Assistance Program Pool to fund the Community 
Housing Partnership, a non-profit agency, in connection 
with its administrative oversight of the rehabilitation of the 
Senator Hotel and the San Christina Hotel in San Francisco 
(File 79-91-2.2). With the release of the $120,000, there was a 
remaining balance of $318,340 in the 1992 Homeless 
Assistance Program Pool reserve. 

The Mayor's Office is now requesting a release of the $200,000 
on reserve from the 1991 CDBG Homeless Assistance 
Program Pool and the $318,340 on reserve from the 1992 
CDBG Homeless Assistance Program Pool, for a total of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



$518,340. The $518,340 would be used to rehabilitate a 
proposed site at 39 Fell Street for an Alcohol Drop-in Center 
operated by Chemical Awareness and Treatment Services 
(CATS), a non-profit agency. The Alcohol Drop-in Center 
would provide short-term refuge to and assist approximately 
50 homeless adults with alcohol and/or drug problems at any 
given time. 

The Board of Supervisors authorized the DPH to accept and 
expend up to $2,231,619 of a three-year grant for the San 
Francisco Homeless Addiction and Long-Term Treatment 
Program (HALT) from the State of California Department of 
Alcohol and Drug Programs on October 28, 1991 (File 146-91- 
71). Subsequently, the DPH, through its RFP process, 
selected CATS to provide the HALT Program's drop-in center 
services. On July 1, 1991, CATS was awarded a contract 
amount of $417,056 by the DPH for fiscal year 1991-92 to 
operate the Alcohol Drop-in Center. Therefore, the release of 
the $518,340 would be the final step before the proposed site 
can be fully renovated and the Alcohol Drop-in Center made 
fully operational. 

The proposed rehabilitation project is budgeted as follows: 

Demolition $8,200 

Bathroom/Shower 65,000 

Ceramic Tile Floors/Walls 34,000 

Kitchen Cabinet 7,780 

Laundry Plumbing 21,000 

Partitions 80,000 

Acoustical Ceiling 28,000 

Doors/Hardware 26,000 

Flooring and Base 45,000 

Painting 14,000 

Storage and Countertops 30,000 

Domestic Water Connection 4,360 
HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning)75,000 

Water Heater 7,500 

Electrical Outlets/Panels 18,000 

Lighting 20,000 

Alarm System 14,000 

Glazing 10,000 

Security Gate 10.500 

Total Renovation Budget $518,340 



Comments: 1. Mr. Jon Pon of the Mayor's Office reports that Chemical 

Awareness Treatment Services expects to award the 
renovation contract through a competitive bid process in 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

27 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

June, 1992 and to begin permanent rehabilitation of the first 
floor of the Fell Street Alcohol Drop-In Center in July, 1992. 

2. Mr. Pon further reports that CATS will not award the 
renovation contract until the agency has a certified grant 
agreement between the Mayor's Office and CATS, and that 
the Controller's Office will not certify the grant agreement 
until the Board of Supervisors approves the release of the 
$518,340. 

Recommendation: Release the reserve funds totaling $518,340. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10 , 1992 



Item In - File 150-92-2 



Department: 
Item: 

Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 
Source of Funds: 
Project: 



Recreation and Park 

Resolution authorizing the Department of Recreation and 
Park to retroactively apply for a new grant for Pier 54's public 
boat launching ramp and waiving indirect costs. 

Up to $500,000 

July 1993 to July 1995 

State Department of Boating and Waterways 

Reconstruction of the Public Boat Launching Facility at Pier 
54 to meet the needs of boaters and provide public access to 
the Bay. 



Description: 



Budget: 



Indirect Costs: 



Comments: 



The Recreation and Park Department proposes to apply for a 
grant from the State Department of Boating and Waterways 
for the reconstruction of Pier 54's Public Boat Launching 
Ramp. The boat launching facility is provided free of charge 
to the public by the City and County of San Francisco, 
however, recent storms have rendered the facility almost 
unusable. The City would like to replace the existing ramp 
which would then meet the needs of the public and provide 
improved access to the Bay. 

Pier 54 Rehabilitation Construction Cost Estimate 

Design, engineering report $50,000 

Pavement removal, grading 150,000 

One-lane concrete launching ramp 100,000 

Boarding floats and gangways 85,000 

Shoreline and Landscaping 30,000 

Contingencies 60,000 

Engineering and Administration 25,000 

Total $500,000 

The Department of Boating and Waterways does not allow 
indirect costs to be included in grants awarded by their 
Department. 

1. The proposed legislation would authorize the Recreation 
and Park Department to apply for the proposed grant from 
the Department of Boating and Waterways. The Department 
would submit legislation requesting authorization to accept 
and expend this grant at a future date. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10 , 1992 

2. The Recreation and Park Department has already applied 
for the proposed grant because the deadline for submission of 
the proposed grant application was June 1, 1992. The 
proposed legislation, therefore, provides for the Board of 
Supervisors to approve the proposed legislation retroactively. 

3. Since the Department of Boating and Waterways does not 
allow the inclusion of indirect costs in grants awarded by 
their Department, the Department of Recreation and Parks 
requests the Board of Supervisors to waive the indirect costs. 

4. A Disability Checklist is contained in the file. 
Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

Items 2 and 3 - Files 102-92-1 and 101-92-2 

1. These items are the Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance (File 101- 
92-2) and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance (File 102-92-1) for Fiscal Year 1992-93. 

2. The annual budget process for the City and County requires that the 
Board of Supervisors approve an Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and 
an Interim Annual Salary Ordinance for fiscal year 1992-93 on or before June 30, 
1992. The purpose of these interim ordinances is to provide position and 
expenditure authorization for the various departments of the City and County 
during the time that the Board of Supervisors is reviewing the Mayor's 
recommended budget for 1992-93 which is scheduled to be adopted by the Board of 
Supervisors on July 20, 1992. 

3. The Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual 
Salary Ordinance are based on the 1992-93 proposed budget recommendations of 
the Mayor. Hence, these ordinances include authorization and funding for all 
programs and program revisions which are included in the Mayor's proposed 
1992-93 budget. Each program and program revision will be reviewed in detail 
during the budget hearings and sessions which have been scheduled by the 
Finance Committee from June 16 through June 25, 1992. 

4. As a general policy, in previous years, the Board of Supervisors has not 
approved new positions and programs during the interim budget period without 
detailed review. This general policy has been implemented by instructing the 
Controller not to certify the availability of funds for new positions, new programs 
or program expansions during the interim budget period between July 1 and July 
31. If an exception is approved by the Board of Supervisors, new positions can be 
filled effective July 1. Otherwise, new positions will generally not be filled until 
August 1 at the earliest. 

5. The Administrative Provisions of the Interim Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance further state that no funds shall be allotted until August 1 for capital 
improvements and equipment. However, leased* equipment is not subject to this 
provision. In certain cases, specific exceptions to these general policies have been 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. Exceptions have been based on such factors 
as new positions and programs that produce revenue and/or major service 
deficiencies which would result from delays in filling new positions or starting 
new programs. Approval of some equipment purchases could result in cost 
savings. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

6. The following draft amendments to the Administrative Provisions of the 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance (AAO) have been prepared for 1992-93 by the 
Controller (See Attachment I, Controller's letter, dated June 5, 1992): 

a. The threshold for purchase of items of equipment under objects 220 or 
231 has been increased in accordance with previous 
recommendations of the Budget Analyst (Section 6). 

b. The Controller will be authorized to transfer reserve funds to 
implement the dental plan (Section 10.4). 

c. A new Section 11.7 is added which would permit the Treasurer to 
refund excess arbitrage (interest earnings above prescribed limits) 
from either bond reserves or interest earnings accounts. 

d. Under a new Section 11.21, the Treasurer will be authorized to Use 
either compensating balances or fees for service, when in the best 
interest of the City, to secure banking services. 

e. Superfluous Port appropriations procedures will be deleted (Section 
19). 

f. Provides for specific procedures for the transfer of Airport Revenue 
Fund monies to accommodate debt service (Section 26). 

The Controller has advised that there are no changes to the charges and 
deductions for various services, such as charges for meals at San Francisco 
General Hospital and the cost for meals at the O'Shaughnessy Guest Cottage. 
Therefore the Controller is not proposing any amendments to the Administrative 
Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance. 

7. Section 3.2 of the Administrative Code provides that any amendments to 
the Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance shall be submitted 
by the Civil Service Commission to the Board of Supervisors. Accordingly, the 
Civil Service Commission prepared and submitted one proposed amendment to 
Section 1.3B of the Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance. 
This amendment results in an increase in the maximum allowable rate of pay for 
part-time employees from the current rate of $707 per month to $768 per month, 
representing a $61 increase per month, or 8.6 percent. This amendment was 
recommended by the General Manager, Personnel based on the average salary 
increase granted to Miscellaneous employees for 1992-93. Since salaries were 
frozen in 1991-92, the 1992-93 figures include two years of salary standardization. 

Additionally, the General Manager of Personnel has recommended one 
other amendment to the Administrative Provisions of the 1992-93 Annual Salary 
Ordinance, adding Section 1.1B as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



A vacancy may be filled in a substitute classification within the same 
occupational group provided that the Civil Service Commission has 
received complete position information and approved use of the substitute 
classification, that the Controller certifies that funds are available, and that 
the duration of the substitute requisition shall not extend beyond the 
current fiscal year, except that renewal of the exchange will be permitted if 
the substitute classification is approved in the following year's budget. The 
Controller shall not allow this provision to be used to fill positions that have 
been abolished as a result of early service retirements under Charter 
Section 8.517-2. 

If this proposed amendment is approved, it will provide City departments 
with increased flexibility for effecting upward reclassifications, which can result 
in promotions, without initial individual review and approval of each 
classification by the Board of Supervisors prior to the reclassification action taking 
effect. Both the Controller as well as the Civil Service Commission staff are 
supportive of this proposed amendment, pointing out that in addition to providing 
departments with more flexibility, it will still require Civil Service to approve only 
those classifications within the same occupational group and will require 
certification by the Controller that funds are available. Furthermore, the upward 
reclassifications must subsequently be approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 
following year's budget if such reclassifications are to continue beyond Fiscal 
Year 1992-93. 

While the Budget Analyst concurs with the Controller's Office and Civil 
Service staff that this flexibility is a desirable management tool, the Budget 
Analyst recommends against removing any authority from the Board of 
Supervisors concerning upward reclassifications, even though such 
reclassifications will have to be ultimately approved in the following year's budget 
if such reclassifications are to continue to be in effect. 

8. In past years, the Mayor's recommended Interim Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance and the Interim Annual Salary Ordinance have, in general, been 
routinely approved by the Board of Supervisors, with the exception of new 
positions and new programs, capital improvements and equipment. 

9. At the direction of the Finance Committee and the full Board of 
Supervisors, the Budget Analyst has historically been instructed to analyze the 
Mayor's recommended budget in detail and make recommendations for reducing 
the Mayor's recommended budget only if such recommendations do not result in 
service level reductions. Budget reductions recommended by the Budget Analyst 
and approved by the Board, have often been used by the Board of Supervisors as a 
source of funds, for increasing appropriations for capital improvements and 
requesting the Mayor (a) to restore items deleted in the Mayor's recommended 
budget and/or (b) include new items in the budget based on the priorities of the 
Board of Supervisors. Except for capital improvements, the Board of Supervisors 
cannot unilaterally add any item back to the Mayor's budget. The restoration or 
addition of expenditures to the Mayor's recommended budget (except for capital 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

improvements) first requires approval by the Mayor and then subsequent 
appropriation approval by the Board of Supervisors. 

Besides the customary budget reports and recommendations, the Budget 
Analyst will also be reporting on the impact of expenditure reductions included in 
the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 budget on service levels. Since such reductions 
have already been effected in the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance, these 
reductions have been reflected in the Interim Budget. 

10. Such reductions would include savings from layoffs, which, according 
to the Mayor's Office, are scheduled to become effective on August 1. According to 
Mr. Al Walker, General Manager, Personnel, approximately 50 layoffs of City and 
County employees are expected as a result of the Mayor's proposed budget. 
However, due to bumping and re-employment rights of persons occupying these 
50 positions, and an estimated 90 positions expected to result in layoffs from the 
Unified School District, Civil Service expects to process between 200 and 400 
personnel transactions. 

11. Approval of the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual Salary Ordinance by the Board of 
Supervisors would implement all expenditure reductions, and revenue increases 
that are not dependent on legislative approval by the Board of Supervisors, which 
the Mayor has included in the final budget. In accordance with the 1992-93 budget 
calendar, the Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and the Interim Annual 
Salary Ordinance are scheduled to be passed for second reading at the June 15 
meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Final passage of these ordinances is 
scheduled for June 22. 

12. The Budget Analyst has been advised by Mr. Burk Delventhal of the City 
Attorney's Office that the Board of Supervisors is required to approve the Mayor's 
recommended 1992-93 Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and Interim 
Annual Salary Ordinance (and therefore the Interim Budget), subject to any 
additional reductions which the Board may choose to make, by no later than June 
30, 1992. Mr. Delventhal has further advised the Budget Analyst that if these 
ordinances are not approved by the Board of Supervisors by June 30, 1992, the 
Controller will no longer have authority to issue payroll warrants to City and 
County employees or to issue other warrants to pay for any other City and County 
services. 

Mr. Ed Harrington, the City Controller, has advised the Budget Analyst 
that he concurs with the opinion of Mr. Delventhal. The Controller will cease to 
issue any further City and County warrants unless the Board of Supervisors 
approves an Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance and Interim Annual 
Salary Ordinance (the Interim Budget) by June 30, 1992. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 



13. The proposed Interim Budget includes expenditure appropriations 
supported by certain revenue increases that are dependent on legislative approval 
by the Board of Supervisors. This amount requiring legislative approval exceeds 
$31.0 million of the total new revenues needed to balance the Mayor's budget. In 
addition to the new revenues requiring legislative approval, numerous other fee 
and revenue increases, not requiring legislative approval, have been included in 
the Mayor's recommended 1992-93 budget. The Budget Analyst will be reporting 
on each of these revenues during the budget hearings conducted by the Finance 
Committee. 

These revenue measures include (1) MUNI fare increases in the amount of 
$9.0 million, (2) a one percent increase from 5 percent to 6 percent in the Utility 
Users Tax on commercial users and the extension of this tax to foreign and 
interstate telephone calls ($11 million), (3) a fee for a one-time amnesty for illegal 
in-law apartment units ($5 million), (4) Increased Parking Meter rates ($2.0 
million to the General Fund), (5) Increased rates for City-owned Parking Garages 
($4.0 million), and (6) various Departmental fee increases in lesser amounts. 

Although the Mayor's budget message refers to a prior year's pledge to 
reduce the 25 percent Parking Tax to 20 percent, there is no legislation pending 
before the Board of Supervisors to effect such a reduction and the Mayor's 
recommended 1992-93 budget does not provide for reduced revenues from a related 
reduced Parking Tax rate. 

Recommendation 

Except for the amendments as itemized below, approve the Interim Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and the Interim Annual Salary Ordinance, including 
the Administrative Provisions of the Interim Annual Appropriation Ordinance 
and the Administrative Provisions of the Interim Annual Salary Ordinance as 
recommended by the Controller (see Point 6 above) and the amendment to Section 
1.3B (see Point 7 above) of the Administrative Provisions of the Annual Salary 
Ordinance as recommended by the Civil Service Commission: (If the Board of 
Supervisors concurs, the Interim Budget would be effective until the Annual 
Appropriation Ordinance and the Annual Salary Ordinance are finally approved 
by the Board and signed by the Mayor.) 

1. Disapprove the amendment to Section 1.1B of the Administrative 
Provisions of the Annual Salary Ordinance as recommended by the General 
Manager of Personnel which would remove authority from the Board of 
Supervisors for upward reclassifications (see Point 7 above). 

2. Provide for the following amendments until the Annual Appropriation 
Ordinance and Annual Salary Ordinance are finally approved by the Board of 
Supervisors and signed by the Mayor: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

35 



Memo to Finance Committee 
June 10, 1992 

a. That all funding and authorization for new positions and new and 
expanded programs be reserved during the interim budget period 
through July 31, subject to the specific exceptions listed in 
Attachment II. 

b. That funding for capi